POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Yevamos 33
YEVAMOS 33 & 34 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, a living
demonstration of love for and adoration of the Torah.
1) WHEN IS ISUR CHAL AL ISUR?
(a) Question: On what do they argue?
(b) Answer #1: Regarding Isur Kolel, according to R. Yosi.
1. R. Chiya holds that R. Yosi says that one is liable
for 2 sins by an Isur Kolel; Bar Kapara holds, only
(c) Question: What Isur Kolel is there here?
1. We understand, a non-Kohen was permitted to do
Melachah, and forbidden to serve; when Shabbos came,
he also became forbidden to do Melachah, the
prohibition applies to service as well.
(d) Answer #2: Rather, they argue regarding Isur Bas Achas
(prohibitions which come simultaneously), according to R.
2. We understand, a blemished Kohen was permitted to
eat sacrifices, and forbidden to serve; when he
became Tamei, he also became forbidden to eat
sacrifices, the prohibition applies to service as
3. A non-Kohen that ate Melikah - the prohibitions can
come together, but it cannot be a case of Isur
1. R. Chiya holds that R. Yosi says that one is liable
for 2 sins; Bar Kapara says, for 1.
(e) Answer #3: Rather, they argue according to R. Shimon by
Isur Bas Achas.
2. Question: How does one find that the 1st 2 cases are
Isur Bas Achas?
3. Answer: A non-Kohen that served on Shabbos - he
brought 2 hairs (after 13 years, and became an adult
- a Bar-Mitzvah) on Shabbos; the prohibitions of
serving as a non-Kohen and Melachah on Shabbos come
when he becomes an adult.
4. Similarly, a blemished Kohen - if he was Tamei when
he became an adult, the prohibitions of serving with
a blemish and while Tamei both come the moment he
becomes an adult.
i. Alternatively, his finger was cut off with a
Tamei knife, making him impure and blemished at
the same time.
5. We understand R. Chiya - he learned from Rebbi how
R. Yosi holds; he will say, Rebbi taught Bar Kapara
how R. Shimon holds (and Bar Kapara later got
6. Question: How will Bar Kapara explain that R. Chiya
heard from Rebbi, he is liable for 2 (since Bar
Kapara says that even R. Yosi says he is only liable
for 1) - would he say that R. Chiya is lying?!!
1. We understand, R. Chiya had to swear to show that R.
Shimon does not hold as he usually does (only by
Isur Bas Achas, he says Isur Chal Al Isur).
2. Question: Why did Bar Kapara have to swear?
i. This is left difficult.
3. We understand, Bar Kapara will say that Rebbi taught
R. Chiya according to R. Yosi (and R. Chiya later
4. Question: How will R. Chiya explain that Bar Kapara
heard from Rebbi, he is liable for 1 (since Rav
Chisda says that even R. Shimon says he is only
liable for 2) - would he say that Bar Kapara is
5. Answer: R. Chiya will say that Rebbi only taught 2
cases of Isur Kolel, in which one is only liable for
1 sin, according to R. Shimon.
2) PROHIBITIONS THAT CAN TAKE EFFECT TOGETHER
(f) Question (Beraisa - R. Yosi): A non-Kohen that served on
Shabbos, and a blemished Kohen that served when Tamei -
the former is liable for serving as a non-Kohen and
Melachah on Shabbos; the latter, for serving with a
blemish, and serving when Tamei;
i. Bar Kapara thought that the case of a non-Kohen
that ate Melikah is similar, so he joined it to
the 2 teachings he heard from Rebbi.
ii. Later, (thinking that Rebbi taught him all 3),
he realized that the prohibitions of Melikah
always come together; he reasoned, the other 2
cases are also Isur Bas Achas, and all are
liable only once.
1. R. Shimon says, the former is only liable for
serving as a non-Kohen; the latter, for serving as a
(g) Question: The non-Kohen that served on Shabbos - what did
i. The Beraisa omitted the case of Melikah.
2. Question: Because of which Tana was this case
omitted (because it is inconsistent with his other
i. Suggestion: If because of R. Yosi - but he says
one is liable for 2 sins by Isur Kolel, all the
more so by Isur Bas Achas!
3. Answer: Rather, according to R. Shimon - he says one
is only liable once by Isur Kolel, but admits that
one is liable twice by Isur Bas Achas.
i. Bar Kapara is refuted.
1. Suggestion #1: If he slaughtered - a non-Kohen is
allowed to slaughter!
(h) Answer (Rav Acha Bar Yakov): He slaughtered the bull of
the Kohen Gadol, according to the opinion that a Zar
(non-Kohen) may not do this.
2. Suggestion #2: If he received the blood and carried
it to the Altar - this is not a Melachah!
3. Suggestion #3: If he burned (on the Altar) - R. Yosi
says, burning is only Chaivei Lavin!
1. Question: If so, why say a Zar - even a regular
Kohen may not do this!
(i) Objection (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa did not say how many
sin-offerings must be brought, or how many Chaivei Lavin
were transgressed - it just said how many prohibitions
2. Answer: *Zar* refers to anyone that is foreign
(unqualified) for this.
1. Question: What difference does it make?
2. Answer: To bury him among the utterly wicked.
(a) (Mishnah): 2 men engaged 2 women; at the time of Chupah,
they switched wives. They are liable for relations with a
married woman; if they are brothers, they are liable for
a brother's wife; if the women are sisters, they are
liable for a wife's sister; if they were Nidos, they are
liable for Nidah;
(b) We separate them for 3 months, lest they are pregnant; if
they are minors, who cannot give birth, they return to
their husbands immediately;
(c) If they are Kohanos, they are disqualified from eating
(d) (Gemara) Question #1: 'They switched' - are we dealing
with intentional sinners?
1. Question #2: R. Chiya taught, they bring (all
together) 16 sin-offerings - if they intentionally
sinned, they do not bring sacrifices!
(e) Answer (Rav Yehudah): The Mishnah should read, 'They were
1. Suggestion #1: The end of the Mishnah supports this
- if they were minors unfitting to give birth, they
are returned immediately - if they intentionally
switched, they are forbidden to their husbands!
(f) Had they intentionally switched, they would not be
2. Rejection: This is no support - a minor that commits
adultery is judged as forced, and is permitted to
her husband (unless he is a Kohen).
3. Suggestion #2: Rather, this clause supports Rav
Yehudah - 'They are separated for 3 months, in case
they are pregnant' if they were not pregnant, they