Yevamot 34a — the Talmud in English

And we inquire about it:

and who

is

this tanna

who taught our Mishna, which forbids each of them with all four prohibitions and obligates him for four sin-offerings,

who holds

also

an inclusive prohibition and

also

an additional prohibition and

also

a simultaneous prohibition?

For when Reuven, the first brother, betrothed one of the women, Rachel, she became forbidden to his brother Shimon simultaneously through two prohibitions: a married woman and a brother’s wife.

And when Shimon betrothed her sister, Leah, Rachel, the wife of his brother Reuven, also became forbidden to him through the prohibition of a wife’s sister, and it took effect on account of its being an inclusive prohibition, since Shimon was now also forbidden to the other sisters of his wife.

And from the moment that Rachel, the wife of Reuven, began to menstruate and became forbidden to her husband Reuven, she also became forbidden to Shimon through the prohibition of menstruation, for the prohibition of menstruation is an additional prohibition, since now additional people were added who are forbidden through this prohibition.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is

Rabbi Meir’s.

For it was taught in a beraita: There is one who eats one eating and is liable for it for four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering:

A person

who was impure, who ate forbidden fat, and it was left over from

consecrated property,

and this was

on Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he took it out with his mouth—

he is liable [

but on Yom Kippur he is not liable for the labor of taking out].

They said to him:

The offering for taking out on Shabbat

is not of the same category.

For we are discussing that he should be liable only for eating, and not for taking out.

And here everything is present:

For when the animal was created, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat took effect upon it, but it was not forbidden for benefit.

Once the animal was consecrated, a prohibition against benefit took effect upon the fat on account of consecrated property, which had not existed previously.

And since it became forbidden as regards benefit, it also became forbidden as regards eating the fat on account of non-priesthood, and this too is on account of an additional prohibition.

And when the offering became left over, the fat of the offering became forbidden for “the eating of the altar,” and by virtue of this it also became forbidden for human eating, and this too is an additional prohibition.

And when the person became impure, the prohibition against eating consecrated food in impurity took effect upon the fat through an inclusive prohibition, for once he became impure he was forbidden from all eating of consecrated food.

And when Yom Kippur arrived, it took effect through an inclusive prohibition, for from then on he was forbidden from eating all foods.

And if this was Shabbat, Shabbat and Yom Kippur took effect simultaneously.

And therefore Rabbi Meir makes him liable also on account of taking out on Shabbat.

And it emerges that Rabbi Meir is the one who makes him liable in all three ways in which one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition.

And we inquire about it: Now that we have established our Mishna according to the view of Rabbi Meir,

and Rabbi Meir—

according to whose view

of his teachers does he make him liable here, in the case of one who married a woman, having erred concerning a mitzva? For we find that Rabbi Meir’s teachers disputed this matter.

If according to Rabbi Yehoshua, did he not say: One who erred concerning a mitzva—

is exempt!

Rather,

necessarily,

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who makes one who errs concerning a mitzva liable for a sin-offering; he said this.

And

if you wish, say: In truth,

Rabbi Meir also

according to Rabbi Yehoshua

said his statement.

When Rabbi Yehoshua said that one who erred concerning a mitzva is exempt—

this applies with regard to

one who had to circumcise two

infants,

one whose time to be circumcised was on Shabbat and one whose time was after Shabbat,

whose time is pressing,

to circumcise the infant whose time was on Shabbat, and because of the pressing circumstance he erred and circumcised on Shabbat the infant whose time was after Shabbat; and Rabbi Yehoshua exempted him because he was pressed to perform a mitzva.

But this one,

in the case of one who married a woman,

since his time is not pressing—

he did not

exempt him, Rabbi Yehoshua.

And we are astonished:

But teruma, whose time is not pressing

to eat it,

and he exempts him,

Rabbi Yehoshua, because he erred concerning a mitzva.

For we learned in the Mishna: If he was eating teruma, and it became known

to him

that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through halitza—

Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable

for

the principal and the fifth.

And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him,

because he erred concerning a mitzva. And the same law is that he should be exempted from an offering, in a place where he is liable for an offering, even when his time is not pressing.

And we answer:

It was stated concerning it; Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: Here we are dealing with one who

eats

teruma on the eve of Passover, when its time is pressing.

And if you wish, say,

indeed it was not Rabbi Meir who taught our Mishna, for he indeed exempts him because he erred concerning a mitzva.

Rather, our Mishna makes him liable

for a simultaneous prohibition, and

even

according to Rabbi Shimon

it is, who is lenient regarding one prohibition taking effect upon another prohibition. And as the Gemara will explain:

Granted, all of them

the marital prohibitions

can be found,

in a case where

they made them

the two brothers

agents

to betroth the two sisters for them,

and they themselves made

the two sisters

agents

to become betrothed to the two brothers,

and the agent encountered the agent,

and the three prohibitions—a married woman, a brother’s wife, and a wife’s sister—took effect simultaneously.

But

the prohibition

of menstruation—how can you find it

taking effect simultaneously with these three prohibitions, so that both the men and the women should each be liable for four sin-offerings, and as we learned, that there are here sixteen sin-offerings?

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav: In

a case where they were all minors: the two brothers before they reached thirteen years of age, and the two sisters before they reached twelve years of age.

And the time of the majority of all of them was on one day.

And they gave their betrothals to an agent, instructing him to betroth them on the condition that their betrothals take effect on the day of their majority.

And when the day of the majority of all of them arrived, the two sisters were

flowing

then with menstrual blood that had begun before that day and continued into its arrival without interruption.

And it follows that at the beginning of the day on which all of them became adults, they became forbidden through all four prohibitions simultaneously.

And the Gemara explains that it is necessary to establish this as a case where they were flowing with blood without interruption, both in order to make the brothers liable and in order to make the sisters liable.

That is, the flow of blood

from

before the time when the two brothers completed their year of

thirteen

until

after

they completed

thirteen

years.

This is in order

to make them liable,

the brothers, for all four liabilities precisely at the moment when they completed thirteen years of age.

And this flow of blood was also

from

the year of

twelve

of the sisters until

after

they completed

twelve

years, in order

to make them liable,

them, simultaneously for all four prohibitions.

We learned in the Mishna that when the error was discovered,

they separate them

from their husbands.

And the Gemara assumed that the error was discovered immediately after they had intercourse.

And we inquire about it:

But does a woman not become pregnant through the first intercourse,

and why do we need to separate them in order to discern what and whose offspring it is?

Rav Naḥman said, Rabbah bar Avuha said:

In a case

where they had intercourse, and repeated

to have intercourse a second time.

And we refute this: Since we established our Mishna according to Rabbi Eliezer, who makes one who errs concerning a mitzva liable, and he makes him liable for two acts of intercourse that were performed even in one lapse of awareness, where he did not learn from one act of intercourse to the next about the prohibited matter—

if they returned and had intercourse, they are liable for a sin-offering also for the second act of intercourse.

But then, that which Rabbi Hiyya taught: Here there are sixteen sin-offerings—

there are

thirty-two

sin-offerings

indeed!

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer, who makes him liable

for a separate sin-offering

for each and every exertion

even in one act of intercourse, if so, sin-offerings

many

very many

there would indeed be,

and not sixteen.

Rather,

necessarily you will explain

that

sin-offerings for their acts

with the first exertion

alone

the tanna counts

.

So too here,

you will answer your question: sin-offerings

for the first act of intercourse

alone

he counts.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: