Study Yevamot folio 33B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואיסור כולל אתנייה, ואליבא דרבי שמעון. וחזיא (ל)בר קפרא לזר שאכל מליקה, ואיידי דדמיא לה — ערבה בהדייהו, ועיין בה, ולא אשכח אלא בבת אחת.
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 R' 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 R' Yehuda HaNasi, but when he examined this last case, he found that it could exist only if the events occurred simultaneously.
וסבר: מדהא בבת אחת, הא נמי בבת אחת. ומדהנך לפטור, הנך נמי לפטור.
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 R' Ḥiyya, bar Kappara did not knowingly speak falsely. Rather, he heard certain matters from R' Yehuda HaNasi and then mistakenly merged with them other matters. As a result, he confused the issue.
מיתיבי: זר ששימש בשבת, ובעל מום ששימש בטומאה — יש כאן משום זרות, ומשום שבת, ומשום בעל מום, ומשום טומאה, דברי רבי יוסי. רבי שמעון אומר: אין כאן אלא משום זרות ובעל מום בלבד. ואילו מליקה שיירה.
The Talmud 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 R' Yosei. R' 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 Talmud 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.