Sanhedrin 63 the second to the bottom Tosphot. The Talmud brings a baraita that gives different things for which the verse that forbids them is ''don't eat on the blood.''לא תאכלו על הדם R. Yochanan says it also forbids the rebellious son. Then some person [amora] says one does not get lashes for them because there are no lashes for anything in which the same verse forbids different things.
Tosphot asks: "But it can't get lashes anyway because it is a prohibition that could lead to the death penalty. And also in fact it does have lashes."
You can ask on the first question the verse, "Don't eat on the blood"לא תאכלו על הדם does not exempt the rebellious son from lashes so it can't exempt anyone from lashes. So to find an exemption is only by what the לאו שבכללות a prohibition that includes many things.
But you could defend the question of Tosphot in this way
it does exempt from lashes because the rebellious son does not get lashes from that verse, but from the verse that is said in its own place. ויסרו אותו. [But for this answer to work you have to assume like the Rambam that when there is stated a punishment you don't need to find a prohibition, you just assume it is there.]
So I gave up. But then we moved on to the second question of Tosphot where it looks like he is in fact saying like I was saying--that the lashes do come from that verse.
So Tosphot is asking on our Gemara from two sides. He is saying if you assume thus and thus, this Gemara makes no sense. And if you make this other set of assumptions, the Gemara still is hard to understand.
In any case, why I bring this to the attention of the public is this. This Tosphot in fact depends on an argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban' [Maimonides and Nachmanides].
To the 'Rambam if there is a punishment you don't need a verse. This is the first assumption of Tosphot. To the Ramban' even if a punishment is stated explicitly you still need to find a verse that forbids the act. And that is the second assumption of Tosphot.
So to sum up what is going on here is Tosphot is saying something that makes a lot of sense. He is saying no matter how you look at this Gemara it comes out difficult "shver." But he just packed this whole long argument (which if I had the energy I would go into more detail) into two short sentences.
a later retraction
I think I have to retract. I think the entire Tosphot is going like the Ramban'.The 'Rambam would deny that either question is valid. Let us think. the first question says that yes we agree with the Gemara that forbidding lots of things would be a reason not to get lashes for that prohibition. but there is a further reason not to get lashes for it--because it leads to the death penalty. The Rambam would say no it does not. Once you know there is a penalty you don't bother looking for the prohibition.the reason for the death penalty might have been that verse "don't eat on the blood"but we don't need it to be and now we know it cant be. the second question of Tosphot does not even begin to the Rambam. To the Rambam the reason for the lashes of the rebellious son is not from that verse because it is a verse that includes other prohibitions.
In any case the Rambam would have to answer the problem of what does Rabbi Yochanan means then and he would say it is just a general hint but it is in fact that the reason for either the lashes or the death penalty.
But you could defend the question of Tosphot in this way
it does exempt from lashes because the rebellious son does not get lashes from that verse, but from the verse that is said in its own place. ויסרו אותו. [But for this answer to work you have to assume like the Rambam that when there is stated a punishment you don't need to find a prohibition, you just assume it is there.]
So I gave up. But then we moved on to the second question of Tosphot where it looks like he is in fact saying like I was saying--that the lashes do come from that verse.
So Tosphot is asking on our Gemara from two sides. He is saying if you assume thus and thus, this Gemara makes no sense. And if you make this other set of assumptions, the Gemara still is hard to understand.
In any case, why I bring this to the attention of the public is this. This Tosphot in fact depends on an argument between the 'Rambam and the Ramban' [Maimonides and Nachmanides].
To the 'Rambam if there is a punishment you don't need a verse. This is the first assumption of Tosphot. To the Ramban' even if a punishment is stated explicitly you still need to find a verse that forbids the act. And that is the second assumption of Tosphot.
So to sum up what is going on here is Tosphot is saying something that makes a lot of sense. He is saying no matter how you look at this Gemara it comes out difficult "shver." But he just packed this whole long argument (which if I had the energy I would go into more detail) into two short sentences.
a later retraction
I think I have to retract. I think the entire Tosphot is going like the Ramban'.The 'Rambam would deny that either question is valid. Let us think. the first question says that yes we agree with the Gemara that forbidding lots of things would be a reason not to get lashes for that prohibition. but there is a further reason not to get lashes for it--because it leads to the death penalty. The Rambam would say no it does not. Once you know there is a penalty you don't bother looking for the prohibition.the reason for the death penalty might have been that verse "don't eat on the blood"but we don't need it to be and now we know it cant be. the second question of Tosphot does not even begin to the Rambam. To the Rambam the reason for the lashes of the rebellious son is not from that verse because it is a verse that includes other prohibitions.
In any case the Rambam would have to answer the problem of what does Rabbi Yochanan means then and he would say it is just a general hint but it is in fact that the reason for either the lashes or the death penalty.
