## Yevamot Daf 32b

###### Yevamot 32b:1
[Yevamot 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:1)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes** that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists **when it is an expanded prohibition.** An expanded prohibition is a prohibition that has a greater scope than the original prohibition, either because it applies with greater severity or because it applies to additional individuals. Rabbi Yosei holds that if the second prohibition incorporates additional individuals into the list of those for whom the original item is prohibited, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition that had a more limited range.


###### Yevamot 32b:2
[Yevamot 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:2)

תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּנָשָׂא חַי וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא מֵת — מִגּוֹ דְּאִתּוֹסַף אִיסּוּר לְגַבֵּי אַחִים, אִתּוֹסַף אִיסּוּר לְגַבֵּי דִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This **works out well** in cases **where the living** brother **married** his wife first, and her sister became forbidden to him as a wife’s sister, **and then afterward the** brother who was subsequently **deceased married** his wife’s sister. In that case it is possible to say: **Since a prohibition was added for** all **the brothers, a prohibition was added for** the living brother as well, and he is liable due to both prohibitions, as this prohibition is more wide-ranging than the previous one. In other words, at first this sister was permitted to the other brothers, and when the second brother married her she was rendered a brother’s wife and so she was additionally forbidden to the other brothers.


###### Yevamot 32b:3
[Yevamot 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:3)

אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּנָשָׂא מֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא חַי, מַאי אִיסּוּר מוֹסִיף אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, where** the **deceased** brother **married** first and **afterward** the **living** brother **married** her sister, **in what way is there a prohibition that adds?** No additional individuals were incorporated into the prohibition as a result of the marriage of the living brother with the sister, since the prohibition here proscribing a wife’s sister applies to him alone.


###### Yevamot 32b:4
[Yevamot 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא מִגּוֹ דְּאִיתְּסַר בְּכוּלְּהוּ אַחְווֹתָא — הַאי אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Since** he himself now married a sister **he became prohibited to all of the other sisters,** as opposed to the prior state of affairs where only his brother was married to one of the sisters and all of the other sisters were permitted to him, and therefore an additional prohibition now applies to him, this is difficult. In this case the new prohibition is not considered an expanded prohibition, but rather **it is** considered **a more inclusive prohibition.** It is more inclusive and more comprehensive in that it adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual. This is not called an expanded prohibition, as it does not add prohibitions to additional individuals.


###### Yevamot 32b:5
[Yevamot 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקׇבְרוֹ בֵּין רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that when Rabbi Yosei stated in the *baraita* that the man is liable due to both prohibitions, for a brother’s wife and for a wife’s sister, he meant to say: **I ascribe to him** liability **as though he transgressed twice,** since indeed he violated two prohibitions, **yet he is liable** to receive punishment in human courts **on only one** count. **And likewise, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I ascribe to him** liability **as though he transgressed twice, yet he is liable** to receive punishment **on only one** count. The Gemara asks: **What difference does it make** if we consider it as though he transgressed twice? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not **to bury him among the completely wicked.** Just as a righteous individual is not buried among the wicked, so too, a wicked individual is not buried among those more wicked than himself. He who violated this prohibition is considered as though he committed two transgressions and not one, and so he would be buried accordingly.


###### Yevamot 32b:6
[Yevamot 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:6)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא. דְּאִיתְּמַר: זָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. בַּר קַפָּרָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. קָפַץ רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: שְׁתַּיִם. קָפַץ בַּר קַפָּרָא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments that the issue of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists is taught **in the dispute** found in a *baraita*, **where it was stated:** With regard to **a non-priest who served** in some capacity in one of the Temple services, such as the burning of a burnt-offering on the altar **on Shabbat, Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable** to receive punishment on **two** counts, both because he was a non-priest serving in the Temple and because he desecrated Shabbat. **Bar Kappara says: He is liable** on **only one** count. **Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **two** counts. **Bar Kappara jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **one** count.


###### Yevamot 32b:7
[Yevamot 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:7)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי חִיָּיא לָדוּן: שַׁבָּת לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — אֵצֶל כֹּהֲנִים הוּתְּרָה. לְכֹהֲנִים הוּתְּרָה, וְלֹא לְזָרִים. יֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וְיֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת. הִתְחִיל בַּר קַפָּרָא לָדוּן: שַׁבָּת לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — הוּתְּרָה. אֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא זָרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the matter could not be decided by tradition, **Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate** and analyze the question logically. Prohibited labor on **Shabbat was prohibited to all. When** prohibited labor **was permitted in the Temple** for the purposes of the Temple service, **it was permitted** only **for priests.** This indicates that **it was permitted for priests and not for non-priests.** Therefore, when a non-priest serves in the Temple on Shabbat, **there is** a transgression **here due to** his serving as **a non-priest and there is** a transgression **here due to** his desecrating **Shabbat. Bar Kappara began to deliberate** in a different manner: **Shabbat was prohibited to all. When it was permitted it was permitted in the Temple,** so that if it was permitted for one to serve in the Temple, it was permitted for him to serve on Shabbat. Therefore, **there is** a transgression **here only** for his serving as **a non-priest,** since if this man were a priest his service would have been permitted. Therefore, he is not liable to receive punishment for desecrating Shabbat.


###### Yevamot 32b:8
[Yevamot 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:8)

בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה. רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. בַּר קַפָּרָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. קָפַץ רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: שְׁתַּיִם. קָפַץ בַּר קַפָּרָא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
They disagreed over a similar issue as well, the case of a priest **with a blemish who served** in the Temple by sacrificing a public offering, which overrides ritual impurity, **while** he was **ritually impure. Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable on two** counts, both for serving with a blemish and for being ritually impure. **Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one** count, for serving with a blemish. **Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **two** counts. **Bar Kappara jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **one** count.


###### Yevamot 32b:9
[Yevamot 32b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:9)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי חִיָּיא לָדוּן: טוּמְאָה לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — אֵצֶל כֹּהֲנִים תְּמִימִים הוּתְּרָה. לְכֹהֲנִים תְּמִימִים הוּתְּרָה, וְלֹא לְבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. יֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וְיֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה. הִתְחִיל בַּר קַפָּרָא לָדוּן: טוּמְאָה לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — הוּתְּרָה, אֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate. Ritual impurity was prohibited to all,** as it was prohibited for all individuals who are ritually impure to enter into the Temple. **When it was permitted in the Temple** in circumstances where the entire public was impure, **it was permitted for unblemished priests.** Therefore, **it was permitted** only **for unblemished priests and not for** priests **with blemishes.** Consequently, if that priest with a blemish served while impure, **there is** a transgression **here due to** his status as **a blemished** priest **and there is** a transgression **here due to ritual impurity. Bar Kappara began to deliberate** in a different manner: **Ritual impurity was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted** for all. Therefore, the only problem was that this priest was blemished, and so **there is** a transgression **here only due to** his status as **a blemished** priest.


###### Yevamot 32b:10
[Yevamot 32b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:10)

זָר שֶׁאָכַל מְלִיקָה, רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. בַּר קַפָּרָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. קָפַץ רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: שְׁתַּיִם. קָפַץ בַּר קַפָּרָא וְנִשְׁבַּע: הָעֲבוֹדָה! כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי: אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
They disagreed over a similar issue as well. This dispute is with regard to **a non-priest who ate a** bird sin-offering that was killed by **pinching** the back of its neck. It is permitted for priests to consume such an offering, but it is prohibited to consume any other bird killed in such a manner, since it was not ritually slaughtered. **Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable** to receive punishment **on two** counts, both for being a non-priest who ate a priestly offering and for eating something that was not properly slaughtered. **Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one** count. **Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **two** counts. **Bar Kappara jumped up and swore:** I swear **by the Temple service** that **this I heard from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on **one** count.


###### Yevamot 32b:11
[Yevamot 32b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/32b:11)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי חִיָּיא לָדוּן: נְבֵלָה לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה. כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — אֵצֶל כֹּהֲנִים הוּתְּרָה. לְכֹהֲנִים הוּתְּרָה, וְלֹא לְזָרִים. יֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וְיֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם מְלִיקָה. הִתְחִיל בַּר קַפָּרָא לָדוּן: נְבֵלָה לַכֹּל נֶאֶסְרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּתְּרָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — הוּתְּרָה, אֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate. An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to priests** alone. Since **it was permitted to priests and not to non-priests, there is** a transgression **here due to** his **status as a non-priest** who ate of the sin-offering **and there is a** transgression **here due to** eating an animal killed by **pinching. Bar Kappara began to deliberate: An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted** to all. Therefore **there is** a transgression **here only for being a non-priest,** since if he were a priest there would be no prohibition at all.