Implied question: Why didn't we ask that granted, Bar Kapara swore to show that R. Yosi holds unlike he is established to hold [in other cases, that Isur Chal Al Isur]. However, why did R. Chiya need to swear?!

Below, the Gemara asks similar to this!

Answer: Here, the Gemara was not meticulous, because this answer does not last (we retract from it).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Beraisa (32a) says that [R. Yosi obligates twice, and] R. Shimon obligates only due to Eshes Ach. We establish this when first the brother who [later] died married [a sister], and afterwards the brother who is [still] living married [her sister], which is Isur Kolel;

R. Chiya taught this, and not Bar Kapara. (Bar Kapara holds that even R. Yosi obligates only once for Isur Kolel!)

Explanation #2 (Tosfos): It seems that also Bar Kapara taught this. [R. Yosi holds that it takes effect] so that he is buried among utter Resha'im.

Question: How do the Isurim come simultaneously? Once he does Melikah, it is Nevelah. The Isur to a Zar takes effect only after Zerikah, when it is permitted to Kohanim!

It says in Makos (18b) that whenever we apply "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem", we apply "v'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh."

Answer: Also the Isur Nevelah takes effect only after Zerikah, when the Isur Me'ilah goes away;

The Isur Nevelah does not take effect on (in addition to) the Isur Me'ilah, which is more stringent than it, just like Me'ilah is more stringent than the Isur of Gid [ha'Nasheh], like it says in Chulin (101a).

Implied question: Bar Kapara in our Sugya holds in Me'ilah (5a) that the Mishnah [about when Me'ilah goes away] discusses a Heter of Zerikah. Once it is possible to do Zerikah (even before Zerikah is done), Me'ilah does not apply!

Answer #1: (This means that there is no longer a Chiyuv Korban for Me'ilah.) In any case, there is an Isur until Zerikah. Therefore, the Isur Nevelah takes effect only after Zerikah.

Answer #2: Bar Kapara holds that R. Shimon in our Sugya teaches like he taught elsewhere, that the Isur of a Zar applies before Zerikah;

He said in Makos (17b) that if a Zar ate an Olah before Zerikah, he is lashed five times, but not due to Zaros in the verse "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem";

Even R. Shimon holds that one is not lashed for that, like it says explicitly there.

Rather, [he is lashed] for Zaros in the verse "Lo Suchal Le'chol bi'Sh'arecha..."

Explanation (Rashi): [R. Yosi] said above that he is liable twice, e.g. when the Isurim of Eshes Ach and Achos Ishah came at once. This can be through a Shali'ach, like we say below (34a);

R. Shimon argues, and says that he is liable only for Eshes Ach. Even though they came at once, Eshes Ach takes effect, for it is more stringent;

Its only Heter after death [of the brother] is in a situation of Yibum. However, Achos Ishah is [always] permitted after his wife dies.

The Beraisa that says that he is liable only for Achos Ishah does not discuss Bas Achas, for if so, he would be liable for Eshes Ach! Rather, first the living brother married, and afterwards the brother who died [later].

Observation: R. Chiya said that R. Yosi obligates two if they were b'Bas Achas. This is not only if they were b'Bas Achas. It is even for an Isur Mosif. This is clear from Kerisus 14b.

Implied question: One Beraisa says that R. Shimon obligates only for Eshes Achiv. This implies that R. Yosi obligates twice!

Answer: R. Yosi means that it is like two Isurim, to bury him among utter Resha'im.

In the other Beraisa, which discusses when first the living brother married, and afterwards the brother who died married, Bar Kapara agrees that according to R. Yosi, he is liable twice;

This is because R. Yosi agrees about an Isur Mosif, like Rashi explained, like is clear from the Mishnah in Kerisus (14b).

Question (Ri): [The Sugya] connotes that Isur Chal Al Isur more for Isur Mosif than for Isur Bas Achas. We conclude that they argue about Isur Bas Achas, according to R. Shimon, and R. Chiya says that R. Shimon obligates twice;

Even so, he (R. Shimon) does not hold [that Isur Chal Al Isur] when it is Isur Mosif, for the Beraisa above says that he is liable only for Achos Ishah!

Explanation (Ri): Surely, Isur Bas Achas is greater (takes effect more). However, Bar Kapara holds [that R. Yosi obligates twice] only in the Isur Bas Achas of here, e.g. Achos Ishah;

Regarding Tum'ah, Shabbos and Nevelah, the Isur that was permitted does not take effect together with the one that was not permitted.

The words connote like this. Bar Kapara said "Shabbos was permitted to everyone. Tum'ah was permitted to everyone." This implies that because they were permitted, they do not take effect.

R. Chiya disagrees, like he says "it was permitted to Kohanim, but not to Zarim." Therefore, he says below that R. Shimon obligates twice for Bas Achas, even though he obligates only once for Isur Mosif.

Support: Below, we say that Isur Bas Achas is greater, for we say "if he obligates [twice] for Kolel, there is no need to say [that he obligates twice] for Bas Achas!

The one who obligates [twice] for Isur Kolel, this is because it is like Isur Mosif, like it says in Shevu'os 24b. If so, it (Isur Bas Achas) is greater than also Isur Mosif.

Explanation: His finger was cut until [it was attached through] the last Mashehu, and when the knife touched it, he became Tamei and a Ba'al Mum [at once. Tosfos Kesuvos 30b (DH Lo) says that since he becomes a Ba'al Mum immediately (i.e. a very short time) after he becomes Tamei, it is considered Bas Achas. Tosfos Yeshanim considers these to be two different answers. I.e. if the finger was already cut, it is truly Bas Achas.]

Explanation: However, R. Yosi obligates twice for an Isur Kolel.

Suggestion: Perhaps it was taught also according to R. Yosi, to exempt!

Rejection: If so, Bar Kapara would not have erred to mix Melikah with them (the two cases that Rebbi truly taught), for it is clear to Bar Kapara that R. Yosi obligates twice for Bas Achas;

Therefore, it is obvious to him below that R. Yosi obligates twice for an Isur Kolel. He is forced to say that it was taught according to R. Shimon, and not according to R. Yosi. R. Yochanan (32b, who says that R. Yosi considers it two Isurim only to bury him among utter Resha'im) argues with R. Chiya and Bar Kapara.

Question: (Why is this difficult?) We count even mere Lavim (without Kares). We count a Zar who ate Melikah, which is only the Lav of Nevelah!

Answer: Even though regarding Isur Mosif, R. Yosi holds that a light Isur is Chal on a stringent Isur...

Proof #1: In Sanhedrin (81a), Rav Ada asked that [a mother-in-law who later married] should be judged also for Eshes Ish, for R. Yosi agrees [about an Isur Mosif], even though Eshes Ish (for which one is choked) is lighter than a mother-in-law (for whom there is stoning)!

Proof #2: In Kerisus (14b), regarding R. Yosi's teaching "if the elder married her...", it connotes that R. Yosi agrees [to the first Tana, who says that the Isur Eshes Ach takes effect on one's granddaughter, i.e.] hat an Isur Kares is Chal on Chayavei Misos Beis Din due to Isur Mosif.

Culmination of Answer: In any case, regarding an Isur Kolel, he holds absolutely that a light Isur is not Chal on a stringent Isur.

Support - Citation (Chulin 101a): Which Tana holds regarding an Isur Kolel, that a severe Isur [is Chal on a light Isur]?... (I.e. even the one who holds that Isur Kolel Chal Al Isur says so only for a stringent Isur on a light Isur.)

This is why we ask "R. Yosi said that burning is only a Lav!" I.e. if so, how is it Chal on the Isur of a Zar?

Question (Ri of Orlins): Why don't we establish it to discuss lighting the woodpile, which is an Avodah that requires Kehunah?

There is no Misah for it, only a Lav, since it is not Avodah Tamah (a final Avodah), like it says in Yoma (24b). Now, it (burning) would not be a light Isur on a severe Isur, for both of them are Lavim!

Answer (Ri): The Isur of Shabbos is lighter, since it is permitted in the Mikdash. However, if there would be Misah for burning, it would be considered severe, even though it is permitted in the Mikdash.

Also the Isur Tum'ah, even though it is permitted, it takes effect on the Isur of a Ba'al Mum, because a Tamei who served is Chayav Misah [bi'Dei Shamayim], but a Ba'al Mum who served is only a Lav according to Rabanan who argue with Rebbi (Sanhedrin 83a).

Implied question: In our entire Sugya, Bar Kapara and R. Chiya argue according to Rebbi! (How can we answer based on Rabanan of Rebbi?)

Answer: Rebbi agrees that R. Yosi holds that a Ba'al Mum who served is only a Lav, like the Rabanan of Rebbi.

Question: In Chulin (103a), we say that the Torah said that the Isur Nevelah is Chal on the Isur Chelev, i.e. a light Isur on a stringent Isur through Kolel!

Answer (Ri): Chelev is a light Isur, because it is totally permitted in Chayos, like it says in Chulin (103a).

Implied question: Also Nevelah is permitted in Melikah!

Answer #1: Kedushah are different, for Kohanim merit to eat from Hash-m's table, like it says in Chulin (120a).

Answer #2: There is a stringency of Nevelah. It is Metamei.

Implied question: [Similarly,] Chelev has a stringency not found in Nevelah!

Answer: We are not concerned for this (even so, it is not considered a light Isur on a severe Isur), like it says in Chulin;

Citation (101a) Question: Why do you say that Tum'as ha'Guf (the person himself) is severe, because it has Kares? Perhaps Tum'as Basar is severe, because it cannot become Tahor through a Mikveh!

Question: Below, we say "who is this Tana, who holds [that Isur Chal Al Isur for] Isur Kolel, Isur Mosif and Isur Bas Achas?"

Inference: The Isur of Achos Ishah is Chal through Kolel on the Isur Eshes Ish, which is more stringent than it!

Answer: Eshes Ish is more lenient, for it has a Heter [through divorce] in the lifetime of the one (her husband) who forbids her, like it says below (54a).

Implied question: Below (103a), there is an opinion that Isur Terefah is Chal on Isur Ever Min ha'Chai;

[Ever Min ha'Chai] is more stringent, for it makes important Mashehu of flesh, sinews and bones (one is liable for a full limb of any size), even if there is not a k'Zayis, and it applies to Bnei No'ach. Even so, the lenient Isur of Terefah is Chal on it, even without Kolel!

Answer (Ri): There is a stringency of Terefah. Once it becomes Terefah, there is no Heter, even if it was slaughtered. Shechitah uproots the Isur Ever Min ha'Chai.

Explanation: This is R. Chananel's text, for here there is no Chatas and no Lav, since a light Isur is not Chal on a severe Isur.

Implied question: Why did we ask above against Bar Kapara, that since the Beraisa omitted Melikah, this implies that R. Shimon agrees about it?

Suggestion: Perhaps it omitted Melikah due to R. Yosi, for he [truly] obligates twice for it. He discusses only matters for which it is considered as if he transgressed two Isurim, to bury him among utter Resha'im!

Answer (and rejection of Suggestion): He discusses a Ba'al Mum who served, even though he is totally liable twice, since Bar Kapara holds that R. Yosi holds that Isur Kolel [is Chal Al Isur].