## Yevamot Daf 33b

###### Yevamot 33b:1
[Yevamot 33b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:1)

וְאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל אַתְנְיֵיהּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְחַזְיַאּ (לְ)בַּר קַפָּרָא לְזָר שֶׁאָכַל מְלִיקָה, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּדָמְיָא לַהּ — עָרְבַהּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, וְעַיֵּין בַּהּ, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח אֶלָּא בְּבַת אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he taught him** the ruling with regard to **a more inclusive prohibition,** that in such cases there is an exemption, **and** this ruling is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. And bar Kappara** then **saw** the case of **a non-priest who ate** a bird killed by **pinching, and since it was similar** to the previous cases, **he mixed them together.** Then, sometime later, it seemed to him as though he had in truth heard all of these cases together from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **but** when **he examined this** last case, **he found** that it could exist **only** if the events occurred **simultaneously.**


###### Yevamot 33b:2
[Yevamot 33b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:2)

וְסָבַר: מִדְּהָא בְּבַת אַחַת, הָא נָמֵי בְּבַת אַחַת. וּמִדְּהָנָךְ לִפְטוּר, הָנָךְ נָמֵי לִפְטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And he concluded** that **since** the case of a non-priest eating a bird killed by pinching can occur only in a scenario where the prohibitions take effect **simultaneously,** the other cases are instances of **simultaneous** prohibitions **as well. And** similarly, **since** he was taught **to exempt** one individual from a second prohibition in **those cases, these cases** were taught **to exempt** one individual from a second prohibition **as well.** Therefore, according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, bar Kappara did not knowingly speak falsely. Rather, he heard certain matters from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and then mistakenly merged with them other matters. As a result, he confused the issue.


###### Yevamot 33b:3
[Yevamot 33b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: זָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, וּבַעַל מוּם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּטוּמְאָה — יֵשׁ כָּאן מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת, וּמִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת, וּמִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם, וּמִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם זָרוּת וּבַעַל מוּם בִּלְבַד. וְאִילּוּ מְלִיקָה שַׁיְּירַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of bar Kappara from a *baraita*: In the case of **a non-priest who served on Shabbat and** the case of **a blemished priest who served while ritually impure, there is** liability **here, due to** the prohibition against serving as **a non-priest; and due to** the prohibition against desecrating **Shabbat; and due to** the prohibition against serving as **a blemished priest; and due to** the prohibition against serving after contracting **ritual impurity.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Shimon says: There is** liability **here only due to** the prohibition against serving as **a non-priest and due to** the prohibition against serving as **a blemished priest.** The Gemara notes: **And yet** the case of a non-priest who ate a bird killed by **pinching was left out** and not mentioned among the cases subject to this dispute.


###### Yevamot 33b:4
[Yevamot 33b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:4)

לְמַאן שַׁיְּירַהּ? אִילֵימָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הַשְׁתָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל מִיחַיַּיב שְׁתַּיִם — בְּאִיסּוּר בַּת אַחַת מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא לָאו לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּבְאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל הוּא דְּפָטַר, אֲבָל בְּאִיסּוּר בְּבַת אַחַת — מִיחַיַּיב. תְּיוּבְתָּא דָּבָר קַפָּרָא תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to whom was this left out?** That is, according to the opinion of which *tanna* would this question arise? **If we say** that this was left out **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** it is difficult. **Now** that **Rabbi Yosei** holds, even **in** cases of **a more inclusive prohibition, that one is liable on two** counts, as was stated with regard to a non-priest who served on Shabbat, **is** it **necessary** to state that in the case **where the** additional **prohibition** takes effect **simultaneously** one would be liable on two counts? **Rather, is it not according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** that this case was left out, as Rabbi Shimon would concede that in this case one is liable on two counts? Therefore, Rabbi Shimon **exempts** one from liability for the second prohibition in cases of **more inclusive prohibitions, but in** cases of **simultaneous prohibitions** he would **deem** one **liable** on two counts. The Gemara summarizes: **The refutation** of the opinion **of bar Kappara is** indeed **a conclusive refutation,** and his statements are rejected.


###### Yevamot 33b:5
[Yevamot 33b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:5)

זָר שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּמַאי? אִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה — שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי בְּקַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה — טִלְטוּל בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question with regard to one of the laws mentioned above. The *baraita* mentioned the case of **a non-priest who served on Shabbat.** The Gemara wonders: **In what** form of service did he perform in the Temple? **If** this is referring to a case where a non-priest performed **the slaughtering** of the sacrificial animal, there would be no prohibition, as the **slaughtering by a non-priest is valid. And if** it is referring to **receiving** the blood **and carrying** the blood to the altar, while this is a case where he would be liable as a non-priest performing the service of a priest, insofar as Shabbat is concerned **this is a case only of moving,** and it does not entail a violation of any prohibited labor.


###### Yevamot 33b:6
[Yevamot 33b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:6)

אִי בְּהַקְטָרָה — וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** he served **by burning** the sacrificial portions on the altar, then this discussion follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, **but didn’t Rabbi Yosei say** that the prohibition against **kindling on Shabbat was** singled **out** to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat merely violates **a prohibition?** This is as opposed to the other prohibited labors, which incur death penalties when violated willfully and entail the bringing of a sin-offering when violated unintentionally. Why, then, would Rabbi Yosei deem one liable for two sin-offerings?


###### Yevamot 33b:7
[Yevamot 33b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:7)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: בִּשְׁחִיטַת פָּרוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּכְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שְׁחִיטַת פָּרוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה. אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא זָר? אֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי! שֶׁזָּר אֶצְלוֹ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:** The service referred to **in** this case is **the slaughtering of the High Priest’s bull** on Yom Kippur, **and this is in accordance with the statement of the one who says** that **the slaughtering of the High Priest’s bull is disqualified** if performed **by a non-priest,** for this service is designated specifically for the High Priest alone. The Gemara asks: **If so,** that this is referring to the slaughtering of the High Priest’s bull, then **why specifically** state **a non-priest? The same would hold true even** for **a common priest as well.** The Gemara answers: **This is referring to one who is as a non-priest in relation to** the High Priest and not to an actual non-priest. The Hebrew word *zar* literally means foreigner, and this type of service is considered foreign to a common priest as well as a non-priest.


###### Yevamot 33b:8
[Yevamot 33b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:8)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי חַטָּאוֹת קָתָנֵי, אוֹ לָאוֵי קָתָנֵי?! אֶלָּא אִיסּוּרֵי בְּעָלְמָא קָא חָשֵׁיב. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקוֹבְרוֹ בֵּין רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi strongly objects to this:** The previous rejection that was based on the idea that the act of burning was not a full-fledged prohibited labor is in fact groundless. **Is** the *tanna* **teaching** how many **sin-offerings** would be incurred, **or is he teaching** how many **negative mitzvot** are being violated? **Rather, he merely** enumerates **the prohibitions** violated by a certain action, without detailing their severities, and therefore the desecration of Shabbat involved in the Temple service can be any Shabbat violation. The Gemara asks: **What practical difference does it make** how many prohibitions are involved? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not **to bury him among the completely wicked.** If he violated two prohibitions, he is considered wicked on two counts and consequently must be buried accordingly.


###### Yevamot 33b:9
[Yevamot 33b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנַיִם שֶׁקִּידְּשׁוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לַחוּפָּה הֶחְלִיפוּ אֶת שֶׁל זֶה לָזֶה וְאֶת שֶׁל זֶה לָזֶה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְאִם הָיוּ אַחִין — מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח. וְאִם הָיוּ אֲחָיוֹת — מִשּׁוּם ״אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ״. וְאִם הָיוּ נִדּוֹת — מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **two** men **who betrothed two women, and at the time that they entered the wedding canopy,** after the betrothal, the men **switched this** wife **with that** wife **and that** one **with this** one, **then these** two men **are liable for** engaging in forbidden sexual relations with **a married woman,** since each of them had intercourse with his fellow’s wife. The act of betrothal is sufficient to prohibit a woman to all other men as a married woman. Therefore, when the women were switched, both men transgressed this violation. **And if they were brothers,** then they are also liable **for** forbidden sexual relations with **a brother’s wife. And if** these women **were sisters,** then they are liable **for** taking **a wife and her sister** as well. **And if they were menstruating women,** they would be liable **for** intercourse with **a menstruating woman** as well.


###### Yevamot 33b:10
[Yevamot 33b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:10)

וּמַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁמָּא מְעוּבָּרוֹת הֵן. וְאִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֵילֵד — מַחֲזִירִים אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאִם הָיוּ כֹּהֲנוֹת, נִפְסְלוּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** following these forbidden sexual relations, **we separate** these women from their husbands **for three months, lest they were impregnated** by that forbidden act of intercourse. Doing so makes it possible to distinguish a child born of these relations, so that he could be rendered a *mamzer*. **And if they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them** to their original husbands. **And if they were daughters of priests, they are** thereby **disqualified from eating of *teruma*.** By engaging in illicit sexual acts, they were rendered forbidden to priests and disqualified from eating *teruma*.


###### Yevamot 33b:11
[Yevamot 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** הֶחְלִיפוּ. מִידֵּי בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן?! וְתוּ, הָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה חַטָּאוֹת — אִי בְּמֵזִיד מִי אִיכָּא קׇרְבָּן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: תְּנִי ״הוּחְלְפוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** In the mishna it states: **They switched** this one with that one. **Are we dealing with** such **wicked individuals** that they would intentionally switch their wives? **And furthermore,** consider **that which Rabbi Ḥiyya taught** on this subject: **There are sixteen sin-offerings here,** four sin-offerings for each of the men and four for each of the women. Yet, **if** they had acted **intentionally would there be an offering?** Sacrifices are brought only for unintentional acts. **Rav Yehuda said: Teach** instead **they were switched,** which indicates that the switching was not done intentionally; rather, the women were accidentally mixed up.


###### Yevamot 33b:12
[Yevamot 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:12)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֵילֵד — מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאִי בְּמֵזִיד, מִי שַׁרְיָא? הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: פִּיתּוּי קְטַנָּה אוֹנֶס נִינְהוּ, וְאוֹנֶס בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מִישְׁרָא שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This, too, stands to reason from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them. And if** this had been done **intentionally, would it be permitted** to return a woman who had engaged in illicit sexual acts to her husband? The Gemara comments: **This** is **not difficult** and does not disprove the notion that the act was intentional. Even if the act was intentional, these women would be permitted to return to their husbands. This is because the **seduction of a minor girl is** considered **rape, and** after **rape** a woman **is permitted** to return **to an Israelite** husband.


###### Yevamot 33b:13
[Yevamot 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yevamot/r/33b:13)

אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁמָּא מְעוּבָּרוֹת הֵן. הָא לָאו מְעוּבָּרוֹת — שַׁרְיָין, וְאִי בְּמֵזִיד מִי שְׁרֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הוּחְלְפוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** this can be derived from a different point **that** the mishna **teaches: We separate** these women from their husbands **for three months,** as **perhaps they** became **pregnant.** From here it can be deduced: **Were** it to become clear after three months that **they are not pregnant, they are permitted** to return to their husbands. **And if** they had acted **intentionally, would this be permitted? Rather,** must one **not conclude from here** that the mishna is referring to a case where **they were switched** inadvertently? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, **conclude from here** that this is the case.