Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 20, 2017 | 讻状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 4

According to Rabbi Yochanan there are five rabbis who all hold that when there is a contradiction between the way the text is read/pronounced and the way it is written, we follow the way it is pronounced. 聽Each case where is it said is brought and explained. 聽Then the gemara questions whether or not anyone holds differently than that – doesn’t everyone follow the pronunciation聽(proof from cooking milk in meat – it is read as milk – chalev – and not forbidden fat – cheilev). 聽This assumption is disproven and a different explanation is brought to explain why everyone agrees in the milk/meat verse.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜专讘谞谉 讬专砖讬注谉 讻转讬讘

And how would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 proof? They would say that although the term: 鈥淪hall condemn鈥 is pronounced as a plural verb, it is written in a way that could also be read in the singular. Consequently, one cannot derive a requirement for more than one judge from there.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

搂 The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages is explained as an example of the more general question of whether the written consonantal text or the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. As Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosei says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, they all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and that the halakha is therefore decided based on the meaning of the word as pronounced, and not on possible alternative readings of the written text.

专讘讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara explains the basis for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion with regard to each of the tanna鈥檌m that he mentioned: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the proof is that which we have just said, with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淗e whom the court shall condemn鈥 (Exodus 22:8) deriving a requirement for five judges in cases of monetary law based on the vocalized plural pronunciation of the term: 鈥淪hall condemn.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 壮砖讘注讬诐壮 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐

And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, it is as it is taught in a baraita: His students asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if she gives birth to a female, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstrual impurity; and she shall then continue in the blood of purification for sixty-six days鈥 (Leviticus 12:5). Based on the written consonantal text, I can read the amount of time she is impure as: 鈥淪eventy [shivim] days,鈥 and not as: 鈥淭wo weeks [shevuayim].鈥 One might have thought, therefore, that a woman who gives birth to a female should be impure for seventy days.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讘讝讻专 讜讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讘谞拽讘讛 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 讘讝讻专 讘谞拽讘讛 讻驻诇讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘讝讻专 讘谞拽讘讛 讻驻诇讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz said to them: It can be proven that this is not the halakha, as the Torah deemed her impure and deemed her pure when she gave birth to a male, and deemed her impure and deemed her pure when she gave birth to a female. Just as when it deemed her pure for thirty-three days after the initial period of impurity when she gave birth to a male, when she gives birth to a female she is pure for sixty-six days, which is double the amount of time; so too, when it deemed her impure for seven days when she gave birth to a male, when she gives birth to a female she is also impure for double the amount of time. Consequently, the verse must be read according to the vocalized reading: 鈥淭wo weeks,鈥 and not according to the consonantal text, which could be read: 鈥淪eventy.鈥

诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗讜 讬爪讗 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬 讗转诐 讝拽讜拽讬诐 诇讻讱 壮砖讘讜注讬讬诐壮 拽专讬谞谉 讜讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

After they left, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz went out and followed them. He then said to them: You do not need this proof that I gave based on the comparison of the periods of impurity with the periods of purity. Rather, we read the verse as: 鈥淭wo weeks,鈥 and the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜讚诐 讝讘讞讬讱 讬砖驻讱壮 讜讘讞讟讗转 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘讞讟讗转 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

With regard to Beit Shammai, the proof that they also hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative is as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 36b): Beit Shammai say: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented on the external altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation the offering has effected atonement, even if more presentations are ideally required, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that even with regard to a burnt-offering, which requires multiple presentations of the blood, a single presentation is sufficient to render the offering valid after the fact. But with regard to a sin-offering, it is valid only if there were at least two presentations. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin-offering that one presented with one presentation, it has effected atonement after the fact.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讗专讘注 诇诪爪讜讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇注讻讘

And Rav Huna says: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:25); and 鈥淭he priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:30); and again: 鈥淭he priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of plural, i.e., 鈥渉orns,鈥 is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the horns of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for the mitzva, meaning that he should present the blood on all four horns of the altar ab initio, and the other two were mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present it on at least two horns.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽专谞讜转 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 砖诇砖 诇诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞转 诇注讻讘

And Beit Hillel say: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text. The word 鈥渉orns鈥 is written once plene, with a vav, which means that it must be read in the plural; and the other two times the words 鈥渉orns鈥 and 鈥渉orns鈥 are written deficient, without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular. Therefore, there are four references to horns here. Three of these presentations are written to indicate that they are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, but the offering is valid even absent their presentation. And the remaining one, i.e., the fourth presentation, is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not presented against at least one horn of the altar. Evidently, Beit Shammai hold the vocalization is authoritative, whereas Beit Hillel hold the consonantal text is authoritative.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇诪爪讜讛 讻驻专讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉

The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none to invalidate, meaning the blood must be presented on all four horns ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if it has not been presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no presentation of the blood of the offering at all.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

With regard to Rabbi Shimon, it is as it is taught in a baraita that records a dispute among the Sages with regard to the number of walls required in a sukka: There must be two walls in their standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, may measure even as little as one handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon says that there must be three walls in their standard sense, and a fourth one that can measure even one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙专注转讗 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讗讟驻讞

The Gemara explains: The Rabbis hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in are written is authoritative. The Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot (Leviticus 23:42) spelled deficient, without the letter vav, in a way that can be read in the singular. And later in that verse it also states: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot spelled the same way. And in the next verse it states: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot,鈥 this time spelled plene, with a vav, which means it must be plural. Therefore, there are four walls here. Remove one verse, which is needed to teach the mitzva to sit in a sukka itself, and three walls remain. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which says that one of the walls may be incomplete, comes and reduces the third and establishes it as a minimum of one handbreadth.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙专注转讗 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讗讟驻讞

And Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalization is authoritative. Since the verses state: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot,鈥 and: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot,鈥 and: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot,鈥 all of which are pronounced as plural nouns, there are six walls here. Remove one verse to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and four walls remain. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai then comes and reduces the fourth wall, and establishes it at a minimum of one handbreadth. Consequently, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon also holds that the vocalization is authoritative.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讬爪讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 壮注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗壮 砖转讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜砖讬注讜专 讗讞讚 讜专讘谞谉 谞驻砖转 讻转讬讘

With regard to Rabbi Akiva, it is as it is taught in a baraita: It is known that a quarter-log of blood that came from a corpse imparts ritual impurity in a tent. And Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that came out of two separate corpses also imparts ritual impurity in a tent? As it is stated with regard to a priest: 鈥淗e shall not come upon any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The word 鈥渂odies鈥 is pronounced as a plural word, and since the Torah teaches elsewhere that: 鈥淭he blood is the life鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), this indicates that impurity can be imparted by one measure of blood that came from two bodies. And the Rabbis say: The word 鈥渂odies鈥 is written deficient, without a vav, so that it can also be read as a singular word, indicating that a quarter-log of blood imparts impurity in a tent only if it came from a single corpse.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬讻讜诇 讘讞诇讘

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that all of the above disputes are based on the question of whether the traditional consonantal text or the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative: Is there a Sage who does not accept the principle that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk [ba岣lev]鈥 (Exodus 23:19). One might have thought the verse should be read as prohibiting the cooking of the young goat in the fat [be岣lev] of the mother, and there is no prohibition against cooking the meat with milk.

讗诪专转 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

You therefore say in response: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and the verse prohibits cooking the young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 讬专砖讬注谉 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬专砖讬注谉 讚讛讗讬讱 讜讛讗讬

Rather, everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. But in actuality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the phrase 鈥渢he court shall condemn鈥 is referring to other judges, in addition to the three that were derived from the earlier verse, leading to a total of five, whereas the Rabbis hold that the term 鈥渟hall condemn鈥 means these judges, i.e., those who have already been mentioned, and therefore there are only three.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, who applied the principle: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, to the question of the duration of the ritual impurity of a woman who gave birth to a female, it can be explained that the Rabbis do not disagree with him, as everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉

With regard to Beit Hillel, who hold that a single presentation of blood is sufficient to atone even when bringing a sin-offering, this is not because they hold the traditional consonantal text is authoritative. Rather, their opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin-offering brought by a ruler: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to a sin-offering of a goat brought by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to a sin-offering of a lamb brought by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:35), repeating this term three times. This repetition is due to the following logical inference:

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

Could this halakha not be derived through an a fortiori inference? There is stated a term of blood below, in the verse written with regard to a bird brought as a sin-offering (see Leviticus 5:9), and there is stated a term of blood above, in the verse written with regard to an animal brought as a sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:25, 31, 35). Just as with regard to the blood that is stated below, when it is presented with one presentation it has effected atonement, so too with regard to the blood that is stated above, when it is presented with one presentation it has effected atonement.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐

Or perhaps go this way, offering a different explanation: There is stated a term of blood in the verse written with regard to the external altar, i.e., in the verse written with regard to a sin-offering of an ordinary person that is brought on the external altar in the courtyard (see Leviticus 4:25), and there is stated a term of blood in the verse written with regard to the inner altar, i.e., with regard to a sin-offering of the community or the High Priest, the blood of which is sprinkled on the incense altar inside the Sanctuary (see Leviticus 4:7, 18). Just as with regard to the blood that was stated concerning the inner altar, i.e., if one of the presentations is lacking it has not accomplished anything and the offering is not valid, so too, with regard to the blood that was stated concerning the external altar, if one of the presentations is lacking it has accomplished nothing.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

The Gemara analyzes the two possibilities: Let us see to which of the two comparisons this is more similar. It can be claimed: We derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the external altar, but we do not derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the inner altar.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

Or go this way: We derive a halakha stated with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar from the halakha stated with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, and this sin-offering consisting of a bird, which is not a sin-offering of the type whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, cannot prove that the halakha is similar with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Since there are two legitimate inferences, the halakha cannot be decided through a logical inference. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 three times, due to the logical inference. The verses are interpreted as follows: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only three presentations, and then a second verse repeats: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only two presentations, and then a third verse repeats: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only one presentation. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 住讻讻讗 诇讗 讘注讬 拽专讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 住讻讻讗 讘注讬 拽专讗

And concerning Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who disagreed with regard to the number of walls required in a sukka, it is with regard to this that they disagree: Rabbi Shimon holds that the basic requirement of placing roofing [sekhakha] on the sukka does not need a verse to teach that it is required, as it is implied by the word sukka. Consequently, the word sukkot appears two times in the text beyond the initial mitzva, teaching a requirement for four walls, and there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that reduces the minimum size of one of the walls to a handbreadth. And the Rabbis hold that the requirement of placing roofing does need a verse. Therefore, one of the four derivations is used to teach that requirement, and only three walls remain, one of which is reduced to a handbreadth.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 谞驻砖转 转专转讬 诪砖诪注 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞驻砖转 讚注诇诪讗 诪砖诪注

And with regard to Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, who disagreed about the issue of a quarter-log of blood that emanated from two corpses, it is with regard to this that they disagree: Rabbi Akiva holds that 鈥渂odies鈥 in plural indicates two. Consequently, a quarter-log of blood that emanated from two corpses also renders one impure. And the Rabbis hold that 鈥渂odies鈥 in plural indicates a general halakha, and no derivation can be made with regard to blood that emanated from two corpses. Both opinions, however, agree that the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 壮诇讟讜讟驻转壮 壮诇讟讟驻转壮 壮诇讟讜讟驻讜转壮 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: And does everyone actually hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:16), with the word totafot spelled deficient, without a second vav, in a way that can be read as singular; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (11:18), this time spelled plene, with a second vav, in a manner that must be plural? There are four mentions of totafot here, as the third one is written in the plural and therefore counts as two. Consequently, it is derived that the phylacteries of the head must have four compartments. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟讟 讘讻转驻讬 砖转讬诐 驻转 讘讗驻专讬拽讬 砖转讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as the requirement of four compartments can be derived from the word totafot itself: The word tat in the language of the Katfei means two, and the word pat in the language of Afriki also means two, and therefore totafot can be understood as a compound word meaning: Four. The baraita therefore indicates that Rabbi Yishmael holds that not the vocalization but rather the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 诪诪住讜专转 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

Rather, the explanation that everyone holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative must be rejected, and it must be explained that the Sages actually do disagree whether it is the vocalization of the Torah or the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written that is authoritative. And in order to explain the unresolved problem with regard to the baraita about the prohibition of cooking a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk, the explanation is that this statement, that they disagree as to whether the vocalization or the tradition is authoritative, applies where the vocalization of the word differs from the tradition of the manner in which the word is written. But in this case the words milk [岣lev] and fat [岣lev] are written in an identical manner, as there is no difference in the writing at all, only in the way they are vocalized. Therefore, all agree that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讜讛专讬 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讚讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讛住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮讬专讗讛壮 壮讬专讗讛壮 讻讚专讱 砖讘讗 诇专讗讜转 讻讱 讘讗 诇讬专讗讜转 诪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜 讗祝 诇讬专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: But the words: 鈥淪hall see鈥 and 鈥渟hall appear鈥 are written in an identical matter, and nevertheless the Sages disagree about which reading is authoritative. As it is taught in a baraita: Yo岣nan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times in the year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈h] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera鈥檈h, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one鈥檚 eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讚专讱 讘讬砖讜诇 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

It is therefore apparent that even when there is no difference in the way the words are written, some say that the tradition, not the vocalization, is authoritative. Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The reason all agree that there is a prohibition to cook a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk and not in its mother鈥檚 fat is that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a young goat鈥 (Exodus 23:19). The verse teaches that the action the Torah prohibited is in the manner of cooking, which is generally done in a liquid such as milk and not in a solid substance such as fat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘砖诇砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three judges.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 4

讜专讘谞谉 讬专砖讬注谉 讻转讬讘

And how would the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 proof? They would say that although the term: 鈥淪hall condemn鈥 is pronounced as a plural verb, it is written in a way that could also be read in the singular. Consequently, one cannot derive a requirement for more than one judge from there.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

搂 The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages is explained as an example of the more general question of whether the written consonantal text or the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. As Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosei says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, they all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and that the halakha is therefore decided based on the meaning of the word as pronounced, and not on possible alternative readings of the written text.

专讘讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara explains the basis for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion with regard to each of the tanna鈥檌m that he mentioned: With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the proof is that which we have just said, with regard to the interpretation of the verse: 鈥淗e whom the court shall condemn鈥 (Exodus 22:8) deriving a requirement for five judges in cases of monetary law based on the vocalized plural pronunciation of the term: 鈥淪hall condemn.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讗拽专讗 讗谞讬 壮砖讘注讬诐壮 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 讬讜诇讚转 谞拽讘讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐

And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, it is as it is taught in a baraita: His students asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if she gives birth to a female, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstrual impurity; and she shall then continue in the blood of purification for sixty-six days鈥 (Leviticus 12:5). Based on the written consonantal text, I can read the amount of time she is impure as: 鈥淪eventy [shivim] days,鈥 and not as: 鈥淭wo weeks [shevuayim].鈥 One might have thought, therefore, that a woman who gives birth to a female should be impure for seventy days.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讘讝讻专 讜讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讘谞拽讘讛 诪讛 讻砖讟讬讛专 讘讝讻专 讘谞拽讘讛 讻驻诇讬诐 讗祝 讻砖讟讬诪讗 讘讝讻专 讘谞拽讘讛 讻驻诇讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz said to them: It can be proven that this is not the halakha, as the Torah deemed her impure and deemed her pure when she gave birth to a male, and deemed her impure and deemed her pure when she gave birth to a female. Just as when it deemed her pure for thirty-three days after the initial period of impurity when she gave birth to a male, when she gives birth to a female she is pure for sixty-six days, which is double the amount of time; so too, when it deemed her impure for seven days when she gave birth to a male, when she gives birth to a female she is also impure for double the amount of time. Consequently, the verse must be read according to the vocalized reading: 鈥淭wo weeks,鈥 and not according to the consonantal text, which could be read: 鈥淪eventy.鈥

诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗讜 讬爪讗 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讬 讗转诐 讝拽讜拽讬诐 诇讻讱 壮砖讘讜注讬讬诐壮 拽专讬谞谉 讜讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

After they left, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz went out and followed them. He then said to them: You do not need this proof that I gave based on the comparison of the periods of impurity with the periods of purity. Rather, we read the verse as: 鈥淭wo weeks,鈥 and the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 砖谞讗诪专 壮讜讚诐 讝讘讞讬讱 讬砖驻讱壮 讜讘讞讟讗转 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讘讞讟讗转 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

With regard to Beit Shammai, the proof that they also hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative is as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 36b): Beit Shammai say: With regard to all offerings whose blood must be presented on the external altar, once the blood has been presented with one presentation the offering has effected atonement, even if more presentations are ideally required, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that even with regard to a burnt-offering, which requires multiple presentations of the blood, a single presentation is sufficient to render the offering valid after the fact. But with regard to a sin-offering, it is valid only if there were at least two presentations. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin-offering that one presented with one presentation, it has effected atonement after the fact.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讗专讘注 诇诪爪讜讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇注讻讘

And Rav Huna says: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:25); and 鈥淭he priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:30); and again: 鈥淭he priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of plural, i.e., 鈥渉orns,鈥 is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the horns of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for the mitzva, meaning that he should present the blood on all four horns of the altar ab initio, and the other two were mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present it on at least two horns.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽专谞讜转 拽专谞转 拽专谞转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 砖诇砖 诇诪爪讜讛 讜讗讞转 诇注讻讘

And Beit Hillel say: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text. The word 鈥渉orns鈥 is written once plene, with a vav, which means that it must be read in the plural; and the other two times the words 鈥渉orns鈥 and 鈥渉orns鈥 are written deficient, without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular. Therefore, there are four references to horns here. Three of these presentations are written to indicate that they are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, but the offering is valid even absent their presentation. And the remaining one, i.e., the fourth presentation, is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not presented against at least one horn of the altar. Evidently, Beit Shammai hold the vocalization is authoritative, whereas Beit Hillel hold the consonantal text is authoritative.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇诪爪讜讛 讻驻专讛 讘讻讚讬 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉

The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none to invalidate, meaning the blood must be presented on all four horns ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if it has not been presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no presentation of the blood of the offering at all.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜专讘讬注讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

With regard to Rabbi Shimon, it is as it is taught in a baraita that records a dispute among the Sages with regard to the number of walls required in a sukka: There must be two walls in their standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides, and a third wall, which, based on a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, may measure even as little as one handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon says that there must be three walls in their standard sense, and a fourth one that can measure even one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙专注转讗 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讗讟驻讞

The Gemara explains: The Rabbis hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in are written is authoritative. The Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot (Leviticus 23:42) spelled deficient, without the letter vav, in a way that can be read in the singular. And later in that verse it also states: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot spelled the same way. And in the next verse it states: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot,鈥 this time spelled plene, with a vav, which means it must be plural. Therefore, there are four walls here. Remove one verse, which is needed to teach the mitzva to sit in a sukka itself, and three walls remain. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which says that one of the walls may be incomplete, comes and reduces the third and establishes it as a minimum of one handbreadth.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讘住讻转 讘住讻转 讘住讻讜转 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖砖 讚诇 讞讚 拽专讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙专注转讗 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讗讟驻讞

And Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalization is authoritative. Since the verses state: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot,鈥 and: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot,鈥 and: 鈥淪o that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot,鈥 all of which are pronounced as plural nouns, there are six walls here. Remove one verse to teach the mitzva of sukka itself, and four walls remain. The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai then comes and reduces the fourth wall, and establishes it at a minimum of one handbreadth. Consequently, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon also holds that the vocalization is authoritative.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讬爪讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 壮注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗壮 砖转讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜砖讬注讜专 讗讞讚 讜专讘谞谉 谞驻砖转 讻转讬讘

With regard to Rabbi Akiva, it is as it is taught in a baraita: It is known that a quarter-log of blood that came from a corpse imparts ritual impurity in a tent. And Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that came out of two separate corpses also imparts ritual impurity in a tent? As it is stated with regard to a priest: 鈥淗e shall not come upon any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The word 鈥渂odies鈥 is pronounced as a plural word, and since the Torah teaches elsewhere that: 鈥淭he blood is the life鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), this indicates that impurity can be imparted by one measure of blood that came from two bodies. And the Rabbis say: The word 鈥渂odies鈥 is written deficient, without a vav, so that it can also be read as a singular word, indicating that a quarter-log of blood imparts impurity in a tent only if it came from a single corpse.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讬讻讜诇 讘讞诇讘

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 assertion that all of the above disputes are based on the question of whether the traditional consonantal text or the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative: Is there a Sage who does not accept the principle that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk [ba岣lev]鈥 (Exodus 23:19). One might have thought the verse should be read as prohibiting the cooking of the young goat in the fat [be岣lev] of the mother, and there is no prohibition against cooking the meat with milk.

讗诪专转 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

You therefore say in response: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and the verse prohibits cooking the young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 讬专砖讬注谉 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬专砖讬注谉 讚讛讗讬讱 讜讛讗讬

Rather, everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. But in actuality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the phrase 鈥渢he court shall condemn鈥 is referring to other judges, in addition to the three that were derived from the earlier verse, leading to a total of five, whereas the Rabbis hold that the term 鈥渟hall condemn鈥 means these judges, i.e., those who have already been mentioned, and therefore there are only three.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

And with regard to Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, who applied the principle: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, to the question of the duration of the ritual impurity of a woman who gave birth to a female, it can be explained that the Rabbis do not disagree with him, as everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚转谞讬讗 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉

With regard to Beit Hillel, who hold that a single presentation of blood is sufficient to atone even when bringing a sin-offering, this is not because they hold the traditional consonantal text is authoritative. Rather, their opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin-offering brought by a ruler: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to a sin-offering of a goat brought by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to a sin-offering of a lamb brought by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:35), repeating this term three times. This repetition is due to the following logical inference:

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

Could this halakha not be derived through an a fortiori inference? There is stated a term of blood below, in the verse written with regard to a bird brought as a sin-offering (see Leviticus 5:9), and there is stated a term of blood above, in the verse written with regard to an animal brought as a sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:25, 31, 35). Just as with regard to the blood that is stated below, when it is presented with one presentation it has effected atonement, so too with regard to the blood that is stated above, when it is presented with one presentation it has effected atonement.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜谞讗诪专 讚诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐

Or perhaps go this way, offering a different explanation: There is stated a term of blood in the verse written with regard to the external altar, i.e., in the verse written with regard to a sin-offering of an ordinary person that is brought on the external altar in the courtyard (see Leviticus 4:25), and there is stated a term of blood in the verse written with regard to the inner altar, i.e., with regard to a sin-offering of the community or the High Priest, the blood of which is sprinkled on the incense altar inside the Sanctuary (see Leviticus 4:7, 18). Just as with regard to the blood that was stated concerning the inner altar, i.e., if one of the presentations is lacking it has not accomplished anything and the offering is not valid, so too, with regard to the blood that was stated concerning the external altar, if one of the presentations is lacking it has accomplished nothing.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

The Gemara analyzes the two possibilities: Let us see to which of the two comparisons this is more similar. It can be claimed: We derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the external altar, but we do not derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the inner altar.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

Or go this way: We derive a halakha stated with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar from the halakha stated with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, and this sin-offering consisting of a bird, which is not a sin-offering of the type whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, cannot prove that the halakha is similar with regard to a sin-offering whose blood is to be sprinkled on the four corners of the altar.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 壮讜讻驻专壮 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 壮讻讬驻专壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Since there are two legitimate inferences, the halakha cannot be decided through a logical inference. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 three times, due to the logical inference. The verses are interpreted as follows: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only three presentations, and then a second verse repeats: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only two presentations, and then a third verse repeats: 鈥淭he priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he presented only one presentation. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 住讻讻讗 诇讗 讘注讬 拽专讗 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 住讻讻讗 讘注讬 拽专讗

And concerning Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who disagreed with regard to the number of walls required in a sukka, it is with regard to this that they disagree: Rabbi Shimon holds that the basic requirement of placing roofing [sekhakha] on the sukka does not need a verse to teach that it is required, as it is implied by the word sukka. Consequently, the word sukkot appears two times in the text beyond the initial mitzva, teaching a requirement for four walls, and there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that reduces the minimum size of one of the walls to a handbreadth. And the Rabbis hold that the requirement of placing roofing does need a verse. Therefore, one of the four derivations is used to teach that requirement, and only three walls remain, one of which is reduced to a handbreadth.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘谞谉 讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 谞驻砖转 转专转讬 诪砖诪注 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 谞驻砖转 讚注诇诪讗 诪砖诪注

And with regard to Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis, who disagreed about the issue of a quarter-log of blood that emanated from two corpses, it is with regard to this that they disagree: Rabbi Akiva holds that 鈥渂odies鈥 in plural indicates two. Consequently, a quarter-log of blood that emanated from two corpses also renders one impure. And the Rabbis hold that 鈥渂odies鈥 in plural indicates a general halakha, and no derivation can be made with regard to blood that emanated from two corpses. Both opinions, however, agree that the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 壮诇讟讜讟驻转壮 壮诇讟讟驻转壮 壮诇讟讜讟驻讜转壮 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: And does everyone actually hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:16), with the word totafot spelled deficient, without a second vav, in a way that can be read as singular; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: 鈥淭hey shall be for totafot between your eyes鈥 (11:18), this time spelled plene, with a second vav, in a manner that must be plural? There are four mentions of totafot here, as the third one is written in the plural and therefore counts as two. Consequently, it is derived that the phylacteries of the head must have four compartments. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟讟 讘讻转驻讬 砖转讬诐 驻转 讘讗驻专讬拽讬 砖转讬诐

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as the requirement of four compartments can be derived from the word totafot itself: The word tat in the language of the Katfei means two, and the word pat in the language of Afriki also means two, and therefore totafot can be understood as a compound word meaning: Four. The baraita therefore indicates that Rabbi Yishmael holds that not the vocalization but rather the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚砖谞讬 拽专讗 诪诪住讜专转 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗

Rather, the explanation that everyone holds that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative must be rejected, and it must be explained that the Sages actually do disagree whether it is the vocalization of the Torah or the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written that is authoritative. And in order to explain the unresolved problem with regard to the baraita about the prohibition of cooking a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk, the explanation is that this statement, that they disagree as to whether the vocalization or the tradition is authoritative, applies where the vocalization of the word differs from the tradition of the manner in which the word is written. But in this case the words milk [岣lev] and fat [岣lev] are written in an identical manner, as there is no difference in the writing at all, only in the way they are vocalized. Therefore, all agree that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

讜讛专讬 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讚讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讚讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讛住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮讬专讗讛壮 壮讬专讗讛壮 讻讚专讱 砖讘讗 诇专讗讜转 讻讱 讘讗 诇讬专讗讜转 诪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜 讗祝 诇讬专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: But the words: 鈥淪hall see鈥 and 鈥渟hall appear鈥 are written in an identical matter, and nevertheless the Sages disagree about which reading is authoritative. As it is taught in a baraita: Yo岣nan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times in the year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈h] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera鈥檈h, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one鈥檚 eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讚专讱 讘讬砖讜诇 讗住专讛 转讜专讛

It is therefore apparent that even when there is no difference in the way the words are written, some say that the tradition, not the vocalization, is authoritative. Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: The reason all agree that there is a prohibition to cook a young goat in its mother鈥檚 milk and not in its mother鈥檚 fat is that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not cook a young goat鈥 (Exodus 23:19). The verse teaches that the action the Torah prohibited is in the manner of cooking, which is generally done in a liquid such as milk and not in a solid substance such as fat.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘砖诇砖讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three judges.

Scroll To Top