Study Yevamot folio 33B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 pr
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
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 prohib
The Talmud asks: According to whom was this left out? That is, according to the opinion of which tanna would this question arise? If we say that this was left out according to the opinion of R' Yosei, it is difficult. Now that R' Yosei holds, even in cases of a more inclusive prohibition, that one
The Talmud raises a question with regard to one of the laws mentioned above. The baraita mentioned the case of a non-priest who served on Shabbat. The Talmud wonders: In what form of service did he perform in the Temple? If this is referring to a case where a non-priest performed the slaughtering o