Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

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 1.

(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.
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 well.
3. A non-Kohen that ate Melikah - the prohibitions can come together, but it cannot be a case of Isur Mosif!

(d) Answer #2: Rather, they argue regarding Isur Bas Achas (prohibitions which come simultaneously), according to R. Yosi.

1. R. Chiya holds that R. Yosi says that one is liable for 2 sins; Bar Kapara says, for 1.
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 confused).
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?!!

(e) Answer #3: Rather, they argue according to R. Shimon by Isur Bas Achas.

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 got confused).
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 lying?!!
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.

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.

(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;

1. R. Shimon says, the former is only liable for serving as a non-Kohen; the latter, for serving as a blemished Kohen.

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 teachings)?

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.

(g) Question: The non-Kohen that served on Shabbos - what did he do?

1. Suggestion #1: If he slaughtered - a non-Kohen is allowed to slaughter!
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!

(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.

1. Question: If so, why say a Zar - even a regular Kohen may not do this!
2. Answer: *Zar* refers to anyone that is foreign (unqualified) for 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 were transgressed!

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 Trumah.
(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 switched'.

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!
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 are permitted.

(f) Had they intentionally switched, they would not be permitted.