יבמות 33 — Soncino English Talmud

¹What is the point at issue between them? -R. Jose's view with regard to a comprehensive prohibition. R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of a comprehensive prohibition R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences, while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only. But what comprehensive prohibition. is here involved? In the case of a common man this may well be understood, since at first 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, so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service. [Similarly with a priest] who had a blemish, since he was at first 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 meat so he was also forbidden to perform the Temple service. Mehkah. however, is only an illustration of prohibitions that set in simultaneously but not of a comprehensive prohibition! -Rather, the point at issue between them is that of simultaneous prohibitions' and R. Jose's view regarding them. R. Hiyya is of the opinion that in the case of simultaneous prohibitions R. Jose deems the transgressor guilty of two offences, while Bar Kappara is of the opinion that he deems him guilty of one offence only. But how are here simultaneous prohibitions possible? — In the case of a common man who performed the Temple service on the Sabbath, when, for instance, he grew two hairs on the Sabbath, so that the prohibitions of Temple service by a common man and of work on the Sabbath have simultaneously arisen. [In the case of a priest] who had a blemish, also, when, for instance, he grew two hairs, while he was unclean, so that [his disability as] a man with a blemish and his uncleanness have simultaneously arisen. Or else, if a man cut his finger with an unclean knife. Now according to [the statement of] R. Hiyya it is quite possible to explain that he was taught in accordance with the view of R. Jose, and that Bar Kappara was taught in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. According to [the statement of] Bar Kappara, however, did R. Hiyya swear falsely? -Rather, the question at issue between them is that of simultaneous prohibitions, and the view of R. Simeon on the subject. One can well understand why R. Hiyya took an oath. He did it in order to weaken the force of R. Simeon s view. 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 explain that when Rabbi taught him he was enunciating the opinion of R. Simeon, and that when he taught R. Hiyya he was enunciating the opinion of R. Jose. According to [the statement] of R. Hiyya. however, did Bar Kappara tell a lie? R. Hiyya can answer you: When Rabbi taught him, he taught him two instances only where the transgressor is exempt,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃnote:R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
^ᵇnote:Who maintains supra that in certain circumstances a prohibition may be imposed upon a prohibition which is already in force.
^ᶜnote:[H] Cf. supra p. 203. n. 8.
^ᵈnote:Nebelah and melikah. V. supra. no. 3 and 4.
^ᵉnote: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.
^ᶠnote:Who performed some Temple service on the Sabbath.
^ᵍnote:That a comprehensive prohibition is involved.
^ʰnote:Before the Sabbath.
^ⁱnote:Owing to Sabbath.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:Cf. supra, n. 2.
^ˡnote:Prior to his defilement.
^ᵐnote:Owing to his uncleanness.
^ⁿnote:The prohibition comprehending the Temple service as well as the consumption of sacrificial meat. Cf. supra. n' 5'
^ᵒnote:Lit., 'it is found'.
^ᵖnote:[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.
^ᵠnote:Since both have been simultaneous. How then could the dispute on melikah be dependent on the principle of a 'comprehensive prohibition'?
^ʳnote:R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
^ˢnote:V. supra p. 205. n. 8.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:Cf. supra p. 205, n. 11.
^ᵛnote:As has been shewn, the instances mentioned, with the exception of melikah, are 'comprehensive prohibitions!'
^ʷnote:The marks of puberty.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote:l.e., his liability to penalties for performing Temple service under such conditions.
^ᶻnote:Cf. note 4, mutatis mutandis.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which act caused both the blemish and the uncleanness to set In at the very same Instant.
^ᵃᵇnote:To reconcile the contradictory statements made by R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara both in the name of Rabbi.
^ᵃᶜnote:R. Hiyya.
^ᵃᵈnote:By Rabbi. Lit., 'when he taught him (it was)'.
^ᵃᵉnote:And that Bar Kappara may have misunderstood Rabbi to give him the opinion of R. Jose.
^ᵃᶠnote:Who asserts that Rabbi recognizes one offence only according to R. Jose.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote:R. Hiyya and Bar Kappara.
^ᵃⁱnote: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.
^ᵃʲnote: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'.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which is known to favour the lighter penalty.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., to reconcile the contradictory statements. v. supra, p. 207. n. 8.
^ᵃᵐnote:Favouring the lighter penalty.
^ᵃⁿnote:Who imposes the heavier penalty; but R. Hiyya mistook him to be reporting R. Simeon and thus the discrepancy arose.
^ᵃᵒnote:Who submitted that the heavier penalty was imposed even by R. Simeon, much more so by R. Jose.
^ᵃᵖnote:Who submitted that Rabbi taught him that the lighter penalty only was to be imposed.
^ᵃᵠnote:He could not have spoken the truth if R. Hiyya's report was at all correct. v. note 6.
^ᵃʳnote:Bar Kappara did not tell a lie.
^ᵃˢnote: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.
^ᵃᵗnote:From one of the penalties.

²and [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. ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ

^ᵃᵘnote:Though when the prohibitions in these cases should happen to be simultaneous, the double penalty would undoubtedly be imposed.
^ᵃᵛnote: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.
^ᵃʷnote:Melikah.
^ᵃˣnote: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'.
^ᵃʸnote:From one of the penalties.
^ᵃᶻnote:Tosef. Yeb. V.
^ᵇᵃnote:Implying that there is no difference of opinion regarding the case where a common man ate of melikah.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., who agrees with whom in this case that it should be excluded from the dispute.
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., that R. Jose agrees in the case of melikah with R. Simeon.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., 'now'.
^ᵇᵉnote:Lit., 'is it required (to be stated)'?
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., 'but (is it) not'.
^ᵇᵍnote: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.
^ᵇʰnote:As in the two cases mentioned.
^ᵇⁱnote:Who maintained supra that even in simultaneous prohibitions R. Simeon exempts from one of the penalties.
^ᵇʲnote:Hence no prohibition of 'service by a common man' is here involved.
^ᵇᵏnote:Of the sacrificial blood in a basin for sprinkling purposes.
^ᵇˡnote:Bringing the blood near the altar.
^ᵇᵐnote:[H] 'moving an object from place to place'; and such movement on the Sabbath is no punishable offence.
^ᵇⁿnote:Of the sacrifices.
^ᵇᵒnote:In Ex. XXXV, 3.
^ᵇᵖnote:Lit., 'went out'.
^ᵇᵠnote: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.
^ᵇʳnote:On the Day of Atonement (v. Lev. XVI, 3ff) which happened to fall on a Sabbath.
^ᵇˢnote: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.
^ᵇᵗnote:Lit., 'also', since the opinion that disqualifies the common man for this service disqualifies also the common priest.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., 'who is a stranger to it, i.e., the particular service, including here even a common priest.
^ᵇᵛnote:Which entail flagellation.
^ᵇʷnote: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.
^ᵇˣnote: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.]
^ᵇʸnote:The men if they had intercourse with the women.
^ᵇᶻnote:The men if they had intercourse with the women.
^ᶜᵃnote:Lev. XVIII, 18.
^ᶜᵇnote:The women.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lev. XVIII, 19.
^ᶜᵈnote:Away from their husbands.
^ᶜᵉnote:Children from such a union are bastards and precaution must be taken that they are not allowed to pass as legitimate children.
^ᶜᶠnote:To their husbands.
^ᶜᵍnote:So Rashal. Cur. edd. 'terumah'.
^ᶜʰnote:[H] Hif., 3rd plural.
^ᶜⁱnote:Who had deliberately exchanged their wives.
^ᶜʲnote:Lit., 'that which he taught'.
^ᶜᵏnote:Lit., 'behold'.
^ᶜˡnote:Four offerings, (one for each transgression enumerated) by each of the four persons mentioned.
^ᶜᵐnote:Lit., 'is there?'
^ᶜⁿnote:In this case the exchange.
^ᶜᵒnote:V. supra notes 9 and 10. For wilful transgression other penalties are prescribed!
^ᶜᵖnote:[H] (B.H. [H]), Hof., i.e., accidentally.
^ᶜᵠnote:That the exchange was not a wilful act.
^ᶜʳnote:The immediate restoration of the minors to their husbands.
^ᶜˢnote:Her husband. V. Keth. 51b.
^ᶜᵗnote:In this case the exchange.
^ᶜᵘnote:Lit., 'but not'.
^ᶜᵛnote:Lit., 'infer from this'.
^ᶜʷnote:V. supra p. 211, n. 17.