Yevamot 32: One For Two

A new Mishna teaches us the case of two brothers marrying two sisters.  One brother dies, and his yevama is forbidden to his brother because of her close family relationship with the his primary wife.  Even after that primary wife dies, the yevama is forbidden to the other brother.  This is because the status of exemption was once in effect and so it is always in effect.

The Gemara suggests that if the remaining brother had sexual intercourse with the yevama (ie. forced marriage through rape), she still would not be permitted to him.  In fact, he would be violating two prohibitions: marrying his brother's wife, and marrying his wife's sister.  The Gemara then questions how the situation might be seen differently based on exactly when the deaths occurred.

This conversation turns into a conversation about multiple prohibitions.  Do we punish a person for each prohibition, or are they grouped together while we punish only the most severe infraction/use the most severe punishment?  We learn about issur mosif, expanded prohibitions, and issur kolel, more inclusive prohibitions.  Both enhance the prohibition but in different ways.  The issur mosif expands the prohibition by adding to it an additional element of prohibition.  The issur kolel expands a prohibition by including other prohibitions within the original prohibition itself.

Expanded prohibitions can involve greater severity, or the addition of multiple individuals to whom the prohibition applies.  Notes teach that the true difference between these two concepts depends upon the individual who is the subject in question.  I hope to ensure that I understand this concept by applying it to a number of different situations and relationships.

The remainder of today's daf provides us with examples of differences of opinion regarding competing prohibitions.  The rabbis present a case where a person has transgressed two halachot.  One rabbi, often Rabbi Chiyya, often argues that the offender was liable on two counts.  Bar Kappara argues that the offender was liable on one count only.  The rabbis then walk through their arguments, finding a logical answer to their differing interpretations.

One of the more interesting descriptions of argument that I've come across, both Rabbi Chiyya and Bar Kappara are said to jump up and down, insisting that each of them heard Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi state their opinions.

Our daf ends on a note of cruelty, where killing birds by pinching their necks (using the elongated thumbnail, cutting through the back of the neck to the throat of the bird.  It was said to be difficult.  I can only imagine how many birds were tortured while priests learned how to perform this slaughter 'well'.  Not that this critique was any part of our daf -- the rabbis were examining multiple offenses, including a non-priest performing an improper slaughter and a sacrifice while ritually impure.