Talmud su Deuteronomio 24:8

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date⁸⁶Since it was established earlier that of the six kinds of deprivation required on the Day of Atonement only not fasting is biblically punishable, the question arises why instead of the generic expression “be deprived” the verse does not directly prescribe “do not eat.” The answer is that in the latter case already eating the volume of an olive would be punishable.. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings⁸⁷This now addresses the problem from where could one infer that all prohibitions of the Day of Atonement also apply to the preceding night. He suggests that since there are several expressions biblically used to indicate prohibitions, there could have been different expressions used for the warnings which would have been interpreted as applying to different times.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act⁸⁸Deut. 24:8. This is a side remark noting that הִשָּׁמֵר is used only in reference to rules spelled out on other occasions. In this particular case it is noted that the rules of the impurity of skin disease (Lev. 13–14) do not include prohibitions; the prohibition implied by Deut. 24:8 is interpreted (cf. Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) to mean that it is forbidden to eliminate the impurity of skin disease by surgically eliminating the diseased tissue., etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not]⁸⁹Necessary addition by the corrector. have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation]⁹⁰Corrector’s addition which seems to be unnecessary. which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major⁹¹“Major” means that prohibitions of work are frequent, applying to the Sabbath as capital crimes and to holidays as misdemeanors; deprivation is “minor” since it applies only to the day of Atonement. it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it⁹²The argument of Rav Hoshaia is essentially correct but has to be realized differently. Since the warning spelled out for work on the Day of Atonement is shown to be unnecessary, it has to be applied as if it were written twice; supplying the desired additional warning to be read as referring to the preceding night.. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side⁹³He reads the argument of R. Ḥiyya not as a conclusion de minore ad majus but as “equal cut” meaning that the expression בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה appearing in Lev. 23:29,30 implies that the rules indicated in both verses are the same. In general one requires that an expression used for “equal cut” not be used for any other inference; but here the entire v. 29 is needed both for warning and punishment (Note 84). There remains the problem that since now it is shown that בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה does not mean “during daylight only”, the expression is not used for any other deduction and therefore the “equal cut” is between two identical expressions not otherwise needed and therefore valid according to everybody, even R. Ismael. One has to say that since the day is defined in Lev. 23:32 as from evening to evening, בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה means that while one has to start fasting and refraining from work somewhat earlier and finish sometime after nightfall the next day, the biblical penalties do not apply to these additional periods and therefore one mention of “on this very day” is needed for this legal implication.
Noted as opinion in dispute, Babli Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b.. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free⁹⁴The Babli would reject the entire argument of R. Zeˋira since it permits the use of “equal cut” only based on an oral tradition. It still would recognize R. Ḥiyya’s argument but it categorically rejects extending the scope of punishments by hermeneutical arguments..

¹⁸²This paragraph is in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(4), Babli Šabbat 132b.“The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized.¹⁸³Lev. 12:3.” Even if it has white skin disease¹⁸⁴Lev. 13:2–28.. How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do …¹⁸⁵Deut. 24:8. The injunction to follow all instructions of the priests in matters of impure skin disease is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to cut out the diseased part of the skin. Then if a baby is born with diseased prepuce, how could it be circumcised?”? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh¹⁸⁶Since the intent is to cut the flesh, cutting the skin is only incidental and is not in the mind of the person who does the circumcision.”, even if it has white skin disease. ¹⁸⁷The disagreement between rabbis Jonah and Yose is discussed in Ḥallah 2:1, Notes 9,10. This is simple in the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together¹⁸⁸The prohibition is irrelevant, cf. Note 186..