Yevamot

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 — 15 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.