Yevamot

— 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.