Study Yevamot folio 34A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: According to R' Ḥiyya, who teaches that this case incurs 16 sin-offerings, who is this tanna who holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists for a more inclusive prohibition, an expanded prohibition, and a simultaneous prohibition? If these men ar
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the opinion of R' Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: There is one who performs a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food, and he is liable to bring 4 sin-offerings and one guilt-offering.
How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat that was notar from a consecrated offering, i.e., it remained after the time when it was permitted to eat it, and this occurred on Yom Kippur. One who did this is liable to bring one sin offering for eating consecrate
R' Meir says: There is one more sin-offering for which he may be liable. If it was Shabbat and he carried this olive-bulk of food from one domain to another in his mouth, he is liable for carrying out on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to R' Meir: Liability for the sin-offering that you added is not incur
The Talmud continues to clarify the opinion of R' Meir: And in accordance with whose opinion is the statement of R' Meir? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehoshua, this is difficult. Didn’t R' Yehoshua say that one who erred with regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing