Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 1.3

משנה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקוֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף אָמְרוּ אֵין נִידָּה בַתּוֹרָה אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה. אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ פְטוּרִין. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת הֲרֵי אֶילּו חַיָיבִין. כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ יֵשׁ נִידָּה בַתּוֹרָה אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פָטוּר הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ חַיָיבִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר. דָּבָר וְלֹא כָל הַגּוּף:

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable; these are liable for it is said something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.

הלכה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקוֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף כול׳. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. מִדָּבָר. לֹא כָל דָּבָר. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. מִמִּצְוֹת. לֹא כָל מִצְוֹת. וְכָתוּב כֵּן. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. גּוֹרְעִין לִדְרוֹשׁ מִתְּחִילַּת הַפָּרָשָׁה עַד סוֹפָהּ. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וַאֲפִילוּ בְאֶמְצַע תֵּיבָה. וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁמֶן מִנְחָה הִיא. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת לִיצִיקָה.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

וְלֹא נִמְצֵאתָ עוֹקֵר כָּל שֵׁם שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. הַלַּיְלָה מוּתָּר וְהַיּוֹם אָסוּר. וְלֹא נִמְצֵאתָ עוֹקֵר כָּל שְׁחִיחָה. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. אַמָּה מוּתֶּרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. וְלֹא נִמְצֵאתָ עוֹקֵר כָּל שֵׁם הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָיה. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת וְאָסוּר לָשׁוּחַ. וְלֹא נִמְצֵאתָ עוֹקֵר כָּל שֵׁם הוֹצָאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. גְּרוֹגֶרֶת מוּתֶּרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי גְרוֹגְרוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. וְאַתְיָיא כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה אַחַת הִיא. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה שְׁתַּיִם הֵן. וְלֹא נִמְצֵאתָ עוֹקֵר כָּל שֵׁם הַכְנָסָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא שֶׁהוֹרוּ מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב. יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ שֶׁאָסוּר לוֹכַל חֵלֶב. וְהַתּוֹרָה נָתְנָה רְשׁוּת לְבֵית דְּין לְהוֹרוֹת. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָּעֵי. כְּזַיִת הַיּוֹם וְכִשְׁנֵי זֵיתִים לְמָחָר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא נָביא וּמַדִּיחַ. יָכוֹל אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ. אַל תִּתֵּן תְּפִילִּין הַיּוֹם תֵּן לְמָחָר. תִּשְׂמַע לָהֶם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לָלֶכֶת בָּהֶם. בְּכוּלָּן לֹא בְמִקְצָתָן. הֲרֵי עָקַרְתָּ שֵׁם כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. וַתֵּ מַר אֵין כָּאן עֲקִירַת הַגּוּף. וְכָא אֵין כָּאן עֲקִירַת גּוּף. רִבִּי מָנָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן דְּבַתְרָה. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בָּא אָמַר. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ. אַמָּה מוּתֶּרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. הֲרֵי עָקַרְתָּ שֵׁם כָּל אוֹתָּה הָאַמָּה. וְתֵי מַר אֵין כָּאן עֲקִירַת גּוּף. וָכָא אֵין כָּאן עֲקִירַת גּוּף.

But would you not have eliminated the entire notion of one who watches a day for the next day? If they said, the night is permitted but the day is forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bending? Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of prostrating? If they said, it is permitted to prostrate oneself but forbidden to sink down. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of taking out? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if they said, one dried fig is permitted but two dried figs are forbidden. This follows him who said that bringing in and taking out are the same. But for him who said that bringing in and taking out are two notions, would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bringing in? Rebbi Yose said, not that they said that it was permitted to eat fat; they knew that it is forbidden to eat fat, but the Torah gave permission to the Court to instruct. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the [amount of] an olive today and of two olives tomorrow? What about a prophet and seducer? I could think that if they said to you, do not put on phylacteries today, put them on tomorrow, that you should listen to them. The verse says, to walk in them, in all of them, not only in part of them; you would have eliminated the notion of that entire day. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject. Rebbi Mana understood it from the following; Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject.