Yevamot 33A

במאי קמיפלגי ⁠— באיסור כולל, ואליבא דרבי יוסי. רבי חייא סבר: רבי יוסי באיסור כולל מיחייב תרתי, בר קפרא סבר: לא מיחייב אלא חדא.

The Talmud asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Talmud suggests that they disagree with regard to the issue of a more inclusive prohibition, and this dispute pertains to the status of a more inclusive prohibition specifically according to the opinion of R' Yosei. R' Ḥiyya holds that R' Yosei is of the opinion that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, one is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara holds that R' Yosei is of the opinion that one is liable only on one count.

ומאי איסור כולל איכא הכא? בשלמא זר: מעיקרא שרי במלאכה ואסור בעבודה. אתיא לה שבת, מגו דקא מיתסר במלאכה ⁠— מיתסר נמי בעבודה.

The Talmud asks: And what more inclusive prohibition is there here in these cases? Granted, in the case of a non-priest who served in the Temple on Shabbat, initially he was permitted to perform labor every day and was prohibited from engaging in the Temple service. When Shabbat came, since he is now prohibited from engaging in prohibited labor in all contexts due to Shabbat, he is also prohibited from engaging in labors related to the Temple service due to Shabbat. Indeed, the additional prohibition of Shabbat was added to the previously existing prohibition against performing service in the Temple. This is a more inclusive prohibition since it also includes prohibited labor outside of the Temple.

בעל מום: מעיקרא שרי באכילה, ואסור בעבודה. איטמי ליה, מגו דקא מיתסר באכילה ⁠— מיתסר נמי בעבודה. אלא מליקה ⁠— בבת אחת היא דמשכחת לה, באיסור כולל לא משכחת לה.

The same is true with regard to a blemished priest who served in the Temple while ritually impure: Initially, prior to his becoming ritually impure, he was allowed to eat from the consecrated animals but was prohibited from performing the Temple service, like all blemished priests. When he was rendered ritually impure, since he is now prohibited from eating of the consecrated items, he is also prohibited from performing the Temple service due to that same ritual impurity. There is, then, a more inclusive prohibition here. However, with regard to the case of a bird that was killed by pinching, you find that the prohibition against the eating of consecrated items by a non-priest and the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass take effect simultaneously. You do not, however, find a more inclusive prohibition here as there was no original prohibition that took effect beforehand. Instead, this is a case of two prohibitions that take effect simultaneously.