Halakhah for Yoma 161:22
רב פפא אמר
Then why does Scripture mention it? It is free for interpretation, hence it serves for comparison, to derive thence an inference from analogy of expression: the penalty is mentioned in connection with [failure of] affliction, and the same penalty is mentioned in connection with [the performance of] labour, hence just as [performance of] labour is punished only after warning, so is [the failure of] affliction punished only after warning. Against this may be objected: There is a specific condition in connection with labour [to which a penalty is attached] in that it is forbidden on Sabbath and festival days, but would you apply the same to [the commandment of] affliction seeing that does not apply on Sabbath and festival days? Rabina said: This Tanna infers it from the word 'self-same'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word occurs both with the prohibition of labour in Lev. XXIII, 30 and with the commandment of affliction in v. 29 ibid., hence appears available for inference from analogy of expression.');"><sup>22</sup></span> Now it must be free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 397. n. 3.');"><sup>23</sup></span> for if it were not free, the objection as above could be raised against it. Hence it indeed must be free. [Consider] there are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah.');"><sup>24</sup></span> five Scriptural verses written in connection with labour:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 29; XXIII, 28, 29, 30 and Num. XXIX, 7.');"><sup>25</sup></span> one indicating the prohibition for the day, one the prohibition for the night, one the warning for the day, one the warning for the night, one remains free for inference from [the prohibition of] labour for [the commandment of] affliction, touching both day and night. The School of R'Ishmael taught: Here the word 'affliction' is used and there the word 'affliction'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the rape of a betrothed maiden, Deut. XXII, 24.');"><sup>26</sup></span> is used; hence just as there the penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too the penalty is incurred only after warning. R'Aha B'Jacob said: One can infer that from the phrase 'Shabbath Shabbathon' ['solemn day of rest']<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 32.');"><sup>27</sup></span> which occurs in connection with the ordinary Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with the Sabbath of creation',i.e., the Sabbath, the observance of which is due to the first Sabbath, a tech. term. for any ordinary seventh day Sabbath, as against other days of rest, viz.,the Holy Days.');"><sup>28</sup></span> and just as there penalty is incurred only after warning, so here too, penalty is incurred only after warning. R'Papa said: