Reference for Bava Metzia 229:17

ורב יהודה אמר חבל ריחים לוקה אחת ורכב לוקה אחת ריחים ורכב לוקה שתים כי נפש הוא חובל

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow be rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow is subject to distraint, but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disrepute among her neighbours. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ, whilst R. Simeon does?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah applies the law to all, whilst R. Simeon seeks the reason of any Scriptural law, and having found it, exempts from the scope of the law those to whom it is inapplicable. ');">¹⁷</span> But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learnt: <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVII, 17. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself</i>? Even such as Abigail!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The most righteous. This shews that R. Judah interpreted the Scriptural reason, whilst R. Simeon did not; v, Sanh. 21a. ');">¹⁹</span> — In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: <i>Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away</i>. Thus, why <i>'shall he not multiply wives to himself'</i>? So <i>'that his heart turn not away</i>.' And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On his view, i.e., where it is not stated. ');">²⁰</span> then Scripture should have written, <i>'Neither shall he multiply</i> [etc.].' whilst <i>'and his heart shall not turn away'</i> is superfluous, for I would know myself that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is <i>'shall not turn away</i>' [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO TAKES A MILL IN PLEDGE TRANSGRESSES A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT AND IS GUILTY ON ACCOUNT OF TWO [FORBIDDEN] ARTICLES, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NO MAN SHALL TAKE THE NETHER OR THE UPPER MILLSTONE TO PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 6; hence, in taking the mill, which consists of both, he seizes two forbidden articles. ');">²¹</span> AND NOT THE NETHER AND THE UPPER MILLSTONES ONLY WERE DECLARED FORBIDDEN, BUT EVERYTHING EMPLOYED IN THE PREPARATION OF FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'food of the soul.' ');">²²</span> FOR IT IS WRITTEN, FOR HE TAKETH A MAN'S LIFE TO PLEDGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Huna said: If a man takes to pledge the nether millstone, he is twice flagellated, [once] on account of the [injunction against] the nether millstone, and [once] on account of, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge,' for the nether and the upper millstones, he is thrice flagellated: (twice) on account of the nether and the upper millstones, and (once) on account of, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge.' But Rab Judah maintained: For taking to pledge the nether millstone, he is flagellated once; for the upper millstone he is likewise flagellated once; for the nether and upper millstones he is flagellated twice; and as for, 'for he taketh a man's life to pledge'

Jastrow