יבמות 34:1 — Soncino English Talmud

And who is this Tanna that admits the force of a 'comprehensive prohibition', a 'prohibition of a wider range' and 'simultaneous prohibitions'? -Rab Judah replied in the name of Rab: It is R. Meir; for we learnt: A man may sometimes consume one piece of food and incur thereby the penalty of four sin-offerings and one guilt.offering. [If. e.g., a man levitically] unclean ate suet that remained over from holy sacrifices, on the Day of Atonement R. Meir said: If this happened on the Sabbath and [the consumer] carried out [the suet] in his mouth, liability is incurred [for this act also]. They said to him: This is an offence of a different character. Whose view, however, IS R. Meir following? If he follows R. Joshua. surely the latter had said that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment is exonerated! — Rather he follows the view of R. Eliezer. If you prefer I might say: He may. in fact, follow the view of R. Joshua, for R. Joshua's statement, that he who made a mistake in respect of a commandment is exonerated, may only be applicable to the case of the children, where one is pressed for time. but not in such a case as this, where time is not pressing. What about terumah, where one is not pressed for time, and he nevertheless exonerates! For we learnt: In the case of a priest who was In the habit of eating terumah and it then transpired that he was the son of a divorced woman or of a haluzah, R. Eliezer imposes payment of the principal and of a fifth, and R. Joshua exonerates! — Surely, in relation to this it was stated that R. Bibi b. Abaye said: We are here speaking of terumah on the Eve of Passover when time is pressing. If you prefer I might say: [Our Mishnah speaks] of simultaneous prohibitions, and may represent even the View of R. Simeon. All these, it may well be conceded, may occur [simultaneously] where [the brothers] appointed an agent and [the sisters also] appointed an agent and one agent met the other; but how could such [simultaneity] occur with menstruation? - R. Amram in the name of Rab replied: When the women's menstrual discharge continued from [the men's] thirteenth, until after their thirteenth [birthday], when these become subject to legal punishments; and from their own twelfth, until after their twelfth [birthday], when they themselves become subject to punishments. THEY MUST BE KEPT APART. Surely, no woman conceives from the first contact! R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abuha: Where contact was repeated. Why, then, did R. Hiyya state, 'Behold sixteen offerings are here involved', when, in fact, there should be thirty-two? And according to your line of reasoning, following the opinion of R. Eliezer who deems they are guilty for every sexual effort, are there not more? But [your own answer would be] that he only takes into consideration the first effort. Well, here also, only the first contact is taken into consideration. Said Raba to R. Nahman:^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

^ᵃnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵇnote:Lit., 'to whom there is'.
^ᶜnote:Wherever they can all be applied to the same person. If, e.g., A the brother of B betrothed C the sister of D, C is forbidden to B as 'his brother's wife' and as 'a married woman', both prohibitions having come into force simultaneously. If B subsequently betrothed D, her sister C becomes forbidden to him, by the comprehensive prohibition of 'his wife's sister', (comprehending all the sisters of D inclusive of C). When C becomes a menstruant she is forbidden to B as a menstruant also, this last being a prohibition of a wider range extending as it does the prohibition of the woman to A also.
^ᵈnote:Cur. edd., 'it was taught'.
^ᵉnote:Lit., 'there is one eating'.
^ᶠnote:Forbidden fat.
^ᵍnote:Nothar, v. Glos.
^ʰnote:The four sin-offerings are due for the eating of (a) holy food while the man is levitically unclean, (b) forbidden fat, (c) nothar and (d) food on the Day of Atonement; while the guilt-offering (asham me'iloth) is incurred for the benefit the consumer (even though he were a priest) had from holy things which were to be burnt on the altar.
^ⁱnote:Lit., 'it was'.
^ʲnote:Carrying on the Sabbath.
^ᵏnote:Thus it is shewn that R. Meir recognizes the validity of the three kinds of prohibition: When the animal was consecrated, the prohibition of having any benefit from any part of it has been added to that of eating its suet (wider range). and when a piece of the suet became nothar (since it is thereby forbidden to be offered up on the altar, which is an added restriction) the prohibition of nothar has also been imposed in respect of its consumption by the priests (again wider range). When the priest becomes unclean and is consequently forbidden to consume any holy meat he is also forbidden to consume the nothar (comprehensive), and with the advent of the Day of Atonement the prohibition of the consumption of food generally on that day falls also on the nothar (again comprehensive). Finally, at the moment Sabbath sets in two more prohibitions are imposed (simultaneous) that of carrying on the Sabbath and that of eating on the Day of Atonement (Rashi) or those of carrying on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement (Tosaf., s.v. [H]).
^ˡnote:Lit., 'it is not from the (same) designation'. Shab. 102a, Shebu. 24b, Ker. 13b.
^ᵐnote:Who, as has been shown, is represented by the Tanna of our Mishnah who admits the imposition of one prohibition upon another even where the performance of a commandment (e.g.. marriage) was intended.
^ⁿnote:Who is at variance on a similar question with R. Eliezer (Shab. 1370). Both R. Joshua and R. Eliezer were R. Meir's teachers.
^ᵒnote:I.e., if his intention was to fulfil a precept and, through an error, his act resulted in a transgression. Cf. the case in our Mishnah and v. supra n. 1.
^ᵖnote:While our Mishnah declares the men guilty!
^ᵠnote:V. supra. n. 2.
^ʳnote:One of whom had to be circumcised on the Sabbath and by mistake another child was circumcised who was born a day later. Only circumcision which takes place on the eighth day of birth is permitted on the Sabbath. Any other is forbidden like all manual labour.
^ˢnote:One is anxious to perform the commandment at its proper time, and one's anxiety that the day shall not pass without its performance may easily result in an error.
^ᵗnote:Marriage, spoken of in our Mishnah.
^ᵘnote:One may contract marriage during any time of his life.
^ᵛnote:V. Glos.
^ʷnote:R. Joshua.
^ˣnote:The disqualified priest, having consumed terumah which was forbidden to him, must pay compensation as any layman, as prescribed in Lev. V, 16.
^ʸnote:Ter. VIII, 1; Pes. 72b, Mak. 11b.
^ᶻnote:Containing 'leaven' or any other hamez.
^ᵃᵃnote:After a certain hour on that day all hamez, would have to be burnt.
^ᵃᵇnote:Who agrees with R. Meir that simultaneous prohibitions do rank as equal in force, and both may be imposed.
^ᵃᶜnote:Prohibitions, enumerated in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵈnote:To betroth the women on their behalf.
^ᵃᵉnote:To accept on their behalf the tokens of betrothal.
^ᵃᶠnote:So that all prohibitions took effect at the very same moment.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which would naturally occur either before, and thus prevent the other three prohibitions from coming into force; or after, and thus be prevented itself from coming Into force.
^ᵃʰnote:A male becomes legally liable to punishments on the termination of his thirteenth, and a female on that of her twelfth year of age. If the respective agents of the two parties who were of the same age to a day. met sometime prior to the conclusion of the last day of the year (twelfth of the females and thirteenth of the males), and arranged for the betrothals to take effect on the following day when both parties become 'of age' (as otherwise the betrothals would not be valid) the betrothals and the prohibitions simultaneously come into force.
^ᵃⁱnote:What, then, is the need for the precaution?
^ᵃʲnote:Supra 33b.
^ᵃᵏnote:Since our Mishnah represents the view of R. Eliezer (or Eleazar).
^ᵃˡnote:Sixteen for each contact. V. infra 92a, Ker. 15a.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sin-offerings involved.