Parallel
יבמות 33:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and [thereby he, in fact.] taught him the law of comprehensive prohibition 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. When, later, he examined it and found it to be possible only as a case of simultaneity of prohibitions. he imagined that as this one is a case of simultaneity so are also the others cases of simultaneity; and as the others are cases where the transgressor is exempt so [he assumed] is this also one in which the transgressor is exempt. 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. [The case of] melikah, however, is here omitted. Now, on account of whom was it omitted? If it be suggested. on account of R. Jose [it may be retorted]. if R. Jose subjects one to two penalties where the prohibition is comprehensive, how much more so when it is simultaneous. Consequently It must have been on account of R. Simeon who thus grants exemption only where the prohibition is comprehensive but imposes both penalties when the prohibitions are simultaneous — This, then, is a refutation against Bar Kappara! 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. If reception or carriage. this involves only a mere movement. If burning, surely R. Jose said, 'The prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath] was mentioned separately in order to [indicate that its transgression is] a prohibition only'! — R. Aha b. Jacob replied: The slaughtering of the bullock of the High Priest, 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. If so, what reason is there for mentioning a common man? Even a common priest would have been equally forbidden! — What was meant was one who is a common man as far as it is concerned. R. Ashi demurred: Was any mention made of sin-offerings or of negative precepts? Surely, only forbidden acts were spoken of! — The point at issue is whether he is to be buried among confirmed sinners. MISHNAH. IF TWO MEN BETROTHED TWO WOMEN, AND AS THESE WERE ENTERING INTO THE BRIDAL CHAMBER, THEY EXCHANGED THE ONE FOR THE OTHER, BEHOLD, THEY ARE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AGAINST A MARRIED WOMAN. IF THEY WERE BROTHERS THEY ARE GUILTY ALSO OF AN OFFENCE AGAINST A BROTHER'S WIFE. IF [THE BETROTHED WOMEN] WERE SISTERS, THEY ARE GUILTY ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROHIBITION, [AND THOU SHALT NOT TAKE] A WOMAN TO HER SISTER. IF THESE WERE MENSTRUANTS [THEY ARE GUILTY ALSO] ON ACCOUNT OF [THE LAW OF THE] MENSTRUANT. THEY MUST BE KEPT APART FOR THREE MONTHS, SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE PREGNANT. IF THEY WERE MINORS INCAPABLE OF BEARING CHILDREN, THEY MAY BE RESTORED AT ONCE. IF THEY WERE PRIESTLY WOMEN THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM THE PRIESTHOOD. GEMARA. THEY EXCHANGED? Are we discussing wicked men! Furthermore, [there is the difficulty] of the statement made by R. Hiyya, that sixteen sin-offerings are here [involved]. Is any sacrifice brought where the act was wilful? Rab Judah replied: Read THEY WERE EXCHANGED. This 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 act had been willful, would [this 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. 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 act had been wilful would she be permitted! Consequently the reading must have been THEY WERE EXCHANGED. This may be taken as proved.
—