YEVAMOS - 034a – ארבעה אחין – פרק שלישי – יבמות, לד ע”א

And who is this Tanna who holds that an inclusive prohibition, an added prohibition and a simultaneous prohibition take effect?^[1]

ומאן האי תנא - Of our Mishnah, who holds that a prohibition takes effect on a prohibition, whether by way of an inclusive prohibition, an added prohibition, or a simultaneous one, as with these men who are liable four chata'os. When Reuven betrothed Rachel first, she became forbidden to Shimon as his brother's wife and as a married woman, and that is a simultaneous prohibition; and our Tanna holds him liable for both. Then Shimon betrothed Leah: since that kiddushin forbade him all her other sisters as his wife's sister, it forbade him his brother's wife too as his wife's sister, even though she already stood forbidden to him; that is an inclusive prohibition. And this Rachel was still permitted to Reuven her husband. When she became a niddah, since a prohibition was added on her towards her husband because of niddah, a prohibition was added on her towards Shimon as well; that is an added prohibition.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It is R' Meir, as it was taught: There is one who eats a single eating and is liable for it four chata'os and one asham: a tamei person who ate cheilev that was also nosar of consecrated offerings, on Yom Kippur.

ארבע חטאות - For tumah, since one who eats kodashim while his body is tamei is liable kares; for cheilev; for nosar; and for Yom Kippur. And an asham for me'ilah,^[2] for with regard to the sacrificial parts even a kohen is an outsider.

R' Meir says: If it was Shabbos and he carried it out in his mouth, he is liable.

אם היתה שבת כו' - But he would not be liable for carrying because of Yom Kippur, for he holds there is no eiruv and carrying on Yom Kippur,^[3] and so it is explained in Kerisus. We see that R' Meir holds all of them. For here: from when this animal was formed, while still chullin, its cheilev became forbidden to eat but permitted for benefit. When it was consecrated, since a prohibition of benefit was added on the cheilev because of [hekdesh], a prohibition of eating was added to it as well because of zarus (an outsider eating holy food), even though it already stood forbidden to eat. It became nosar: since a prohibition was added towards the altar because of nosar, it was added towards the kohen as well because of nosar. Those two are because of an added prohibition. This man became tamei: until now he was permitted the pieces of consecrated meat and now he became forbidden in them; since he became forbidden in the other pieces because of tumah, he became forbidden in this one too because of tumah; that is an inclusive prohibition. Then came Yom Kippur: since he became forbidden in chullin because of Yom Kippur, he is forbidden in kodashim too because of Yom Kippur; that too is an inclusive prohibition. And since R' Meir holds him liable for carrying on Shabbos, we see that he holds a simultaneous prohibition takes effect, for when the day became holy, the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur and the prohibition of Shabbos took effect on him together.

They said to him: It is not of the same category.^[4]

And R' Meir, according to whom does he hold? If according to R' Yehoshua, he said: One who erred in a matter of a mitzvah is exempt!^[5]

ור"מ אליבא דמאן - That is: granted that R' Meir himself holds that in such a case a prohibition takes effect on a prohibition; but where the man meant to do a mitzvah, to marry a wife, which of his teachers does R' Meir follow regarding one who erred in a matter of a mitzvah and did not do a mitzvah? If according to R' Yehoshua, he said he is exempt, in Maseches Shabbos, perek R' Eliezer d'Milah (137a), where it is taught in the Gemara: One who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbos and one to circumcise on Sunday, and he forgot and circumcised the Sunday one on Shabbos. That too is erring in a matter of a mitzvah without doing a mitzvah, for its time had not yet come, and R' Yehoshua exempts.

Rather, according to R' Eliezer.

If you want, say: In truth according to R' Yehoshua. When R' Yehoshua said one who erred in a matter of a mitzvah is exempt, that applies to babies, whose time is pressing; but this, since its time is not pressing, no.

דזמנו בהול - He was busy circumcising the Shabbos baby so that its time should not pass.

אבל הכא - Regarding marriage, its time is not pressing, for the mitzvah has no fixed time, and he should have checked.

But there is terumah, whose time is not pressing, and he exempts! As we learned: If one was eating terumah and it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a chalutzah, R' Eliezer obligates the principal and a fifth, and R' Yehoshua exempts.^[6]

It was said about it: Rav Bivi bar Abaye said: Here we are dealing with terumah on erev Pesach,^[7] whose time is pressing.

תרומה בערב הפסח זמנו בהול - So that it should not have to be burned.

And if you want, say: With a simultaneous prohibition, and according to R' Shimon.^[8]

ואיבעית אימא - The whole Mishnah is not R' Meir; rather, even R' Shimon, who is lenient, agrees here, where they all took effect at once.

Granted, all the others can be found: where they (the brothers) appointed an agent, and they (the sisters) appointed an agent, and agent met agent. But niddus, how can you find it?

דשוו אינהו - The two brothers appointed one agent to bring the kiddushin to the two sisters, and the sisters appointed one agent to receive the kiddushin.

ופגע שליח בשליח - And together there took effect on each of them the prohibition of a married woman, and the prohibition of a brother's wife and of a wife's sister.

אלא נדות היכי מצי משכחת לה - At the same moment as the kiddushin? If the kiddushin came before this niddus, the prohibitions of a married woman, a wife's sister and a brother's wife came first, and niddus can no longer come and take effect; and if niddus came first, no other prohibition can then come and take effect.

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav: With women who have a continuous flow,^[9] from within thirteen to after thirteen, to make them (the men) liable; from within twelve to after twelve, to make them (the women) liable.

אמר רב עמרם אמרי בי רב - You can find sixteen chata'os with a simultaneous prohibition: with women who have a continuous flow, from within thirteen years of the husbands' birth to after thirteen.

לאיחיובי אינהו - That is, this reason is to make the males liable, that all of them took effect on them at once, for on that day they come into the age of punishment.

ומתוך י"ב לאחר י"ב לאיחיובי אינהי - For a woman comes into the age of punishment at twelve years and one day, and a male at thirteen and one day. You can find it where the males were born on the first of Tishrei and the females on the first of Tishrei of the following year; on one day twelve years are completed for the females, which is thirteen for the males. They gave kiddushin to take effect on the next day, when they become adults, for we need one day into the thirteenth year for the females and one day into the fourteenth year for the males. And the women began to flow at the end of twelve years from birth, until the next day. And although the niddus came first, they were not forbidden to these men, since they were not yet bound by mitzvos, nor were these men forbidden to them, since they were not yet bound by mitzvos. So the kiddushin and the punishable prohibition of niddus took effect on them when Rosh Hashanah of the thirteenth year for the females, which is the fourteenth year for the males, began at nightfall; for the kiddushin and the niddus came before their adulthood and stood suspended, ready to take effect when they grew up, and at one moment they all took effect. That is why he said women who flow: for one cannot time the onset of niddah and the taking hold of kiddushin to the very same moment, unless they came an hour earlier, while they were minors.

They separate them:^[10]

But a woman does not conceive from a first bi'ah!

Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuh: Where they had relations a second time.

But then, that which R' Chiya taught: Here there are sixteen chata'os,^[11] there would be thirty-two!

תלתין ותרתין הויין - For we established our Mishnah above according to R' Eliezer, and we heard him say that one is liable for each and every bi'ah, below (92a) and in Maseches Kerisus (15a).

And according to your reasoning: by R' Eliezer, who obligates for each and every thrust, there would be many more!

על כל כח וכח - Of bi'ah. Below, in perek Ha'ishah (92a), it is taught thus: If he had relations with her, and again had relations with her, he is liable for each one; these are the words of R' Eliezer. And since we heard R' Eliezer obligate for two bi'os in one lapse of awareness, you must say he also holds several liabilities in one bi'ah, for each and every thrust is a pleasure of bi'ah by itself. It is the Rabbanan who obligate only once, because they are all in one lapse of awareness, and with two bi'os too they would be liable only once; but if there was awareness between thrust and thrust, one would be liable for each one, as we learned in Shevuos (14a) and in Maseches Horayos (6): If he was having relations with a tehorah and she said to him, I have become tamei, and he withdrew at once, he is liable, for his withdrawal is as pleasurable to him as his entry. And R' Eliezer, who says bi'os divide, holds that thrusts divide too; and we established the Mishnah above according to R' Eliezer. So how does R' Chiya teach sixteen and no more?

Rather, he counts by the first thrust; so too, he counts by the first bi'ah.

Rava said to Rav Nachman:

אם היתה שבת והוציאו כו' - In perek Amru Lo (Kerisus 14a) the Gemara wanted to infer from here that there is no eiruv and carrying on Yom Kippur, since he needed to say if it was Shabbos etc.; he should have taught, and if he carried it out he is liable. It concludes that there is eiruv and carrying on Yom Kippur, and he mentioned Shabbos to multiply liabilities: he is liable for Shabbos and for Yom Kippur. And if you ask: how does R' Meir count liabilities for carrying together with liabilities for eating? What does one have to do with the other? He could just as well have said: if he did a melachah on Shabbos, he is liable. The Ri says: because at the moment of swallowing the liability for carrying comes too, even though it has not yet come to rest, for their swallowing is their placing down; as Rava said in perek Hamotzi Yayin (Shabbos 80a): If he carried out two letters and wrote them while walking, he is liable, for their writing is their placing down.

והוציאו בפיו חייב - And what is said in Hamatznia (ibid. 92a), one who carries out in his mouth or with his elbow is exempt, because he did not carry out the way people carry: with a food item, that is a proper way of carrying. The Kuntres^[12] explains that there is a simultaneous prohibition here, for when the day became holy the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur and the prohibition of carrying on Shabbos took effect on him. Rabbeinu Yitzchak finds this difficult: what does this have to do with a prohibition taking effect on a prohibition? Even according to the one who says a prohibition does not take effect on a prohibition even simultaneously, here it takes effect according to all, even one after the other; even if he does the eating and the carrying one after the other, and even if Shabbos and Yom Kippur took effect one after the other. For the prohibition of melachah on Shabbos, if it comes first, does not prevent the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur from taking effect after it, since this was not yet forbidden because of Shabbos; and likewise the reverse. And Rabbi Yitzchak said that the simultaneous prohibition is the prohibition of carrying on Shabbos and the prohibition of carrying on Yom Kippur, as I explained, that he mentioned Shabbos to multiply liabilities.

טעה בדבר מצוה פטור - And if you ask: in Pesachim, perek Eilu Devarim (72a), R' Meir sets their dispute in the case of two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbos and one to circumcise on Sunday, where R' Yehoshua exempts when he went ahead and circumcised the Sunday one on Shabbos, even though he did not do a mitzvah, because Shabbos was given to be overridden for one baby; but with two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbos and one to circumcise on Friday, where he went ahead and circumcised the Shabbos one on Friday and the Friday one on Shabbos, he is liable even though he did a mitzvah, because Shabbos was not given to be overridden. So too here with two women he should be liable, since ervah was not given to be overridden! One can answer that there the matter does not depend on overriding, but on his being preoccupied with the baby he has to circumcise on Shabbos and erring in it; so too here, he errs about his wife.

בערב הפסח כו' - He could have said: because eating terumah is called avodah, and R' Yehoshua's reason is because it is written and accept the work of his hands,^[13] even of chalalim, as said in perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim 72b).

באיסור בת אחת ואליבא דרבי שמעון - And it works well even according to R' Yehoshua, for R' Shimon holds in perek Eilu Devarim (ibid.) that according to R' Yehoshua, one who erred in a matter of a mitzvah and did not do a mitzvah is liable.

מתוך שלשה עשר לאחר שלשה עשר לאיחיובי אינהו - This is the reading of the Kuntres. And it is difficult: then it is not simultaneous, for niddus takes effect on him first, since he cannot betroth or appoint an agent until he grows up, for the act of a minor is nothing. Rabbeinu Tam said that all the early texts read so, but in the book Basar al Gabei Gechalim^[14] the reading is: with women who flow, from within three to after three, to make them liable, for after three years and one day she is fit for bi'ah, and all the prohibitions come and take effect; and from within twelve to after twelve, to make them liable; and if they had relations when all were adults, there are sixteen chata'os. Both by the reading of the Kuntres and by this reading, flowing is not exact; rather, she saw blood and did not immerse in between; and by Rabbeinu Tam's reading, she saw within three and did not immerse until after twelve.

Notes

1. 1. Issur chal al issur: as a rule, a prohibition cannot take effect on something already forbidden by another prohibition, so one act carries only one penalty. Three exceptions are debated: an inclusive prohibition (issur kollel), which newly forbids a wider group and so includes this person too; an added prohibition (issur mosif), which adds a new restriction for others and so for this person too; and a simultaneous prohibition (issur bas achas), where both take effect at the same moment. Our Mishnah, which makes the switched husbands liable several chata'os, must hold that these take effect.
2. 2. Me'ilah: misuse of consecrated property for personal benefit. One who unknowingly benefits from hekdesh brings an asham me'ilos and repays the value plus a fifth. The sacrificial fats (eimurim) belong to the altar, so even a kohen eating them counts as an outsider.
3. 3. Eiruv and carrying on Yom Kippur: whether the melachah of carrying from one domain to another (and the eiruv that permits it) applies on Yom Kippur as on Shabbos. This is debated in Kerisus 14a; Rashi here takes R' Meir to hold that it does not, so the carrying makes him liable only because it is also Shabbos.
4. 4. The Sages object that carrying is a Shabbos labour, not part of the forbidden eating, so it should not be counted among the liabilities of a single eating.
5. 5. To'eh bi-dvar mitzvah: one who erred while trying to do a mitzvah. R' Yehoshua exempts him from a chatas, as with a man who had two babies to circumcise, one on Shabbos and one on Sunday, and mistakenly circumcised the Sunday baby on Shabbos (Shabbos 137a). Here too, each husband meant to marry his own wife.
6. 6. The son of a kohen and a divorcee or chalutzah is a chalal, disqualified from the kehunah and forbidden to eat terumah. A non-kohen who unknowingly eats terumah repays its value plus a fifth (keren v'chomesh). R' Yehoshua exempts this man, who thought he was a kohen eating terumah as a mitzvah.
7. 7. On erev Pesach, terumah that is chametz must be eaten before the time chametz becomes forbidden, or it must be burned; so the kohen was pressed for time, just as with the baby's circumcision.
8. 8. R' Shimon holds that a prohibition does not take effect on an existing one even as inclusive or added, but he agrees that two prohibitions taking effect at the same moment both apply. So the Mishnah can follow him if all the prohibitions took effect at once.
9. 9. Shofos: women with a continuous flow of niddah blood. Boys become liable to punishment at thirteen years and a day, girls at twelve years and a day; Rashi shows how, through this timing, the kiddushin and niddah prohibitions could all take effect at one moment.
10. 10. The Mishnah (Yevamos 33b) teaches that when the brides were switched as they entered the chuppah, the husbands are separated from their true wives for three months, lest the women have conceived from the other man, so that each child's father will be known. The Gemara's question assumes this was the women's first bi'ah.
11. 11. R' Chiya counted sixteen chata'os: each of the two men is liable four (a married woman, a brother's wife, a wife's sister, and niddah), and each of the two women likewise four. If the Mishnah follows R' Eliezer, who obligates for each bi'ah separately, two bi'os would double the count.
12. 12. Kuntres: the name by which Tosfos refers to Rashi's commentary.
13. 13. Devarim 33:11, from Moshe's blessing to the tribe of Levi. The Gemara (Pesachim 72b) learns from it that even the service of a chalal is accepted after the fact; since a kohen's eating terumah counts as avodah, R' Yehoshua exempts the chalal who ate it.
14. 14. Basar al Gabei Gechalim: an early book whose reading of this Gemara Rabbeinu Tam cites against the reading in the other texts.