Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists when it is an expanded prohibition. An expanded prohibition is a prohibition that has a greater scope than the original prohibition, either because it applies with greater severity or because it applies to additional individuals. Rabbi Yosei holds that if the second prohibition incorporates additional individuals into the list of those for whom the original item is prohibited, then it takes effect in addition to the previous prohibition that had a more limited range.

The Gemara asks: This works out well in cases where the living brother married his wife first, and her sister became forbidden to him as a wife’s sister, and then afterward the brother who was subsequently deceased married his wife’s sister. In that case it is possible to say: Since a prohibition was added for all the brothers, a prohibition was added for the living brother as well, and he is liable due to both prohibitions, as this prohibition is more wide-ranging than the previous one. In other words, at first this sister was permitted to the other brothers, and when the second brother married her she was rendered a brother’s wife and so she was additionally forbidden to the other brothers.

However, where the deceased brother married first and afterward the living brother married her sister, in what way is there a prohibition that adds? No additional individuals were incorporated into the prohibition as a result of the marriage of the living brother with the sister, since the prohibition here proscribing a wife’s sister applies to him alone.

And if you would say: Since he himself now married a sister he became prohibited to all of the other sisters, as opposed to the prior state of affairs where only his brother was married to one of the sisters and all of the other sisters were permitted to him, and therefore an additional prohibition now applies to him, this is difficult. In this case the new prohibition is not considered an expanded prohibition, but rather it is considered a more inclusive prohibition. It is more inclusive and more comprehensive in that it adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the same individual. This is not called an expanded prohibition, as it does not add prohibitions to additional individuals.

Rather, Rava said that when Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita that the man is liable due to both prohibitions, for a brother’s wife and for a wife’s sister, he meant to say: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, since indeed he violated two prohibitions, yet he is liable to receive punishment in human courts on only one count. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, yet he is liable to receive punishment on only one count. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make if we consider it as though he transgressed twice? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. Just as a righteous individual is not buried among the wicked, so too, a wicked individual is not buried among those more wicked than himself. He who violated this prohibition is considered as though he committed two transgressions and not one, and so he would be buried accordingly.

§ The Gemara comments that the issue of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already exists is taught in the dispute found in a baraita, where it was stated: With regard to a non-priest who served in some capacity in one of the Temple services, such as the burning of a burnt-offering on the altar on Shabbat, Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both because he was a non-priest serving in the Temple and because he desecrated Shabbat. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

Since the matter could not be decided by tradition, Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate and analyze the question logically. Prohibited labor on Shabbat was prohibited to all. When prohibited labor was permitted in the Temple for the purposes of the Temple service, it was permitted only for priests. This indicates that it was permitted for priests and not for non-priests. Therefore, when a non-priest serves in the Temple on Shabbat, there is a transgression here due to his serving as a non-priest and there is a transgression here due to his desecrating Shabbat. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Shabbat was prohibited to all. When it was permitted it was permitted in the Temple, so that if it was permitted for one to serve in the Temple, it was permitted for him to serve on Shabbat. Therefore, there is a transgression here only for his serving as a non-priest, since if this man were a priest his service would have been permitted. Therefore, he is not liable to receive punishment for desecrating Shabbat.

They disagreed over a similar issue as well, the case of a priest with a blemish who served in the Temple by sacrificing a public offering, which overrides ritual impurity, while he was ritually impure. Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable on two counts, both for serving with a blemish and for being ritually impure. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count, for serving with a blemish. Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate. Ritual impurity was prohibited to all, as it was prohibited for all individuals who are ritually impure to enter into the Temple. When it was permitted in the Temple in circumstances where the entire public was impure, it was permitted for unblemished priests. Therefore, it was permitted only for unblemished priests and not for priests with blemishes. Consequently, if that priest with a blemish served while impure, there is a transgression here due to his status as a blemished priest and there is a transgression here due to ritual impurity. Bar Kappara began to deliberate in a different manner: Ritual impurity was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted for all. Therefore, the only problem was that this priest was blemished, and so there is a transgression here only due to his status as a blemished priest.

They disagreed over a similar issue as well. This dispute is with regard to a non-priest who ate a bird sin-offering that was killed by pinching the back of its neck. It is permitted for priests to consume such an offering, but it is prohibited to consume any other bird killed in such a manner, since it was not ritually slaughtered. Rabbi Ḥiyya says: He is liable to receive punishment on two counts, both for being a non-priest who ate a priestly offering and for eating something that was not properly slaughtered. Bar Kappara says: He is liable on only one count. Rabbi Ḥiyya jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on two counts. Bar Kappara jumped up and swore: I swear by the Temple service that this I heard from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He is liable on one count.

Rabbi Ḥiyya began to deliberate. An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to priests alone. Since it was permitted to priests and not to non-priests, there is a transgression here due to his status as a non-priest who ate of the sin-offering and there is a transgression here due to eating an animal killed by pinching. Bar Kappara began to deliberate: An unslaughtered animal carcass was prohibited to all. When it was permitted in the Temple, it was permitted to all. Therefore there is a transgression here only for being a non-priest, since if he were a priest there would be no prohibition at all.