Yevamos - Daf 33
- Rebbe Chiya and Bar Kappara disagree באיסור בבת אחת ואליבא דרבי שמעון
The Gemara on Daf 32b brought three machlokosim between Rebbe Chiya and Bar Kappara, regarding a זר ששמש בשבת – a non-Kohen who did avodah in the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos, a בעל מום ששימש בטומאה – a blemished Kohen who did the avodah while tamei, and a זר שאכל מליקה – a non-Kohen who ate the meat of a bird-offering that was slaughtered through melikah. Rebbe Chiya held that in each of these cases the person is chayav twice, and Bar Kappara held he is only chayav for one transgression. The Gemara here goes through an extensive analysis of what their machlokes is based on and concludes that they are disagreeing באיסור בת אחת ואליבא דרבי שמעון – in regard to simultaneous prohibitions, which are prohibitions that come into being for a person at the same time, and according to the opinion of Rebbe Shimon. Rashi explains that according to Rebbe Chiya, even Rebbe Shimon, who rejects the principle of איסור כולל and איסור מוסיף, would agree that prohibitions that occur at the same time take effect since neither is in a position to block the other from taking effect. According to Bar Kappara, Rebbe Shimon also rejects the principle of באיסור בבת אחת – simultaneous prohibitions taking effect.
- Which prohibition did the zar do as part of the avodah of the Beis Hamikdash?
The Gemara asks in reference to the first case, what avodah did the zar do on Shabbos? It cannot be shechitah since shechitah is kosher with a zar. And it cannot be קבלה או הולכה – receiving the blood or carrying it to the mizbeyach, since טלטול בעלמא הוא – it is only a case of handling, and it is not a form of chillul Shabbos. And it cannot be a case of burning it on the mizbeyach, since Rebbe Yose holds הבערה ללאו יצאת – kindling was singled out in the passuk to teach that it is only a lav and it is not a melachah that one is chayav capital punishment and kares. Rav Acha bar Yaakov answers: בשחיטת פרו של כהן גדול – shechting the Kohen Gadol’s bull on Yom Kippur, according to the one who holds that a zar may not do it. When the Gemara notes that even an ordinary Kohen is not permitted to do so, it answers zar in this context refers to someone who is not a Kohen in regard to this avodah. Rav Ashi objected to this answer since a chatas was not mentioned in Rebbe Yose’s ruling, and neither were any negative mitzvos. Rather, איסורי בעלמא קא חשיב – it refers to general prohibitions, even if they do not result in a chatas or malkus. The nafka minah is in regard לקברו בין רשעים גמורים – to burying him among complete reshayim. According to Rebbe Yose he is buried among the reshaim, but according to Rebbe Shimon he is not.
- Two men who were mekadesh two women and at the time of chuppah they exchanged wives
The next Mishnah brings a case of two men who were mekadesh two women, and at the time of the chuppah החליפו זה את זה – they exchanged wives and discusses how many lavim they would be over if it was a case of two brothers, that married to two sisters, who were niddahs, and how to rectify the situation. The Gemara asks if it is possible that they willfully exchanged wives, for it is hard to believe the Mishnah is addressing reshaim, and furthermore, Rebbe Chiya taught in a related Baraisa that there would be a total of sixteen chatos brought, and if they did it b’meizid, a chatas is not brought. Rav Yehudah answered: תני הוחלפו – emend the Mishnah to read: “they were exchanged,” beshogegg.
