Sanhedrin 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis,

what will they answer concerning Rabbi’s exposition?!

The Gemara answers:

“It is written”

in the Torah without the letter vav between the letters ayin and nun. This deficient spelling was transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and the spelling of this word conveys a singular expression. The Sages and Rabbi disagree over whether “the tradition is primary” or “the reading is primary,” as will be explained.

Introduction to the discussion of “the reading is primary” or “the tradition is primary”

In several places in the Torah, words appear whose reading based solely on their spelling, without the vowels, differs from their manner of reading according to the vocalization.

The ordinary form of reading a word according to its vocalization is called “reading.” Reading according to the spelling without the vocalization is called “tradition,” because it takes into account only the tradition of the spelling of the letters, without taking the vocalization into account [although the vocalization, too, was transmitted to Moses at Sinai].

At times, the meaning of the bare spelling [“tradition”] contradicts the meaning according to the vocalization [“reading”]. The tannaim disagree over how to act where there is a contradiction between the meaning of the “tradition” of the spelling and the meaning of the “reading,” namely, reading according to the vocalization:

Some hold: “the reading is primary,” meaning that the principal basis of the exposition is what is implied by the form of the reading with its vocalization. For example, Rabbi holds that since the reading of the word according to its vocalization has a plural meaning, the verse speaks in the plural.

Others hold: “the tradition is primary.” Although the word is read according to its vocalization in a certain manner, nevertheless, since in the Torah it is written in a form that permits it to be read according to the spelling without the vocalization, and there is a tradition transmitted from Sinai to read it in this manner, the principal basis of the exposition of the verse must be the written form, according to the reading conveyed by the tradition.

For example, regarding this word, the Sages too agree that according to the vocalization it is read in the plural, but since according to the tradition this word is to be read without the vocalization, and according to the bare spelling its meaning is singular, the verse is therefore expounded with regard to a single person.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

These tannaim, namely:

Rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva—all of them

all these

hold

that the reading is primary.

Rabbi —

this is what we said,

that he expounds the word in the plural.

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz —

from this

as it is taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 12]: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days.

And for thirty-three days she shall remain in the blood of purity [although she sees blood, she is pure. Rashi].

And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be impure for two weeks, as during her menstruation; and for sixty-six days she shall remain over the blood of purity.”

The word meaning “two weeks” — according to the reading [the vocalization] means two weeks, whereas according to the tradition [the bare spelling] it can be interpreted as the number seventy.

The students asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz: “May I read it,”

I can read what is stated in the Torah as “seventy,” not according to the vocalization but according to the spelling, as though it were the number

seventy,

and then

could

the woman

who gives birth to a female be impure for seventy

days?

He said to them

Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz said to the students: This cannot be said, because

the verse rendered impure and rendered pure

the woman

with regard to a male,

as the Torah states that a woman who gives birth to a male has days of impure blood and days of pure blood,

and rendered impure and rendered pure

the verse

with regard to a female,

and likewise, regarding a woman who gives birth to a female, the Torah states that she has days of impurity and days of purity.

What,

just as

when it rendered pure

the verse

for

a woman who gives birth to a

male [thirty-three days of pure blood], correspondingly it rendered pure

for

a woman who gives birth to a

female for twice as long [sixty-six days of pure blood],

so too, when it rendered impure with regard to a male

for seven days, correspondingly

with regard to a female

it rendered her impure

for twice as long —

two weeks.

And the beraita relates:

After they left

the students,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz left

and

went after them,

searching for them,

and said to them: “Oh,

you do not

need this,

this exposition, because

we read it as ‘two weeks,’ and the reading is primary.

Thus, Rabbi Yehuda ben Ro’etz holds that the reading is primary.

Beit Shammai —

from this

as we learned

in tractate Zevaḥim [36b]:

Beit Shammai say: With regard to all

sacrifices

whose blood is placed

whose blood is placed

on the outer altar,

if he placed it

the blood on the altar, even if he

placed it as one placement —

he effected atonement,

after the fact, although initially more placements of the blood must be made as it is stated: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured,”

which implies a single pouring.

And with regard to a sin-offering,

the one bringing the sacrifice does not achieve atonement until the priest gives at least

two placements.

And Beit Hillel say: Even in the case of a sin-offering, if he placed its blood as one placement, he effected atonement.

With regard to a sin-offering, according to everyone it is impossible to derive from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” that a single placement suffices, because in the case of a sin-offering there is no “pouring” of the blood; rather, the priest places some of the blood on the altar with his finger.

The Torah states three times, with regard to external sin-offerings [Leviticus 4]: “And he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering.” Once this is stated with regard to a sin-offering of a ruler who sinned; once with regard to the goat of an individual who sinned; and once with regard to the ewe of an individual who sinned.

These verses are superfluous and are available for exposition, since the Torah could have written this only in the first passage, while in the second and third passages the verse could have stated: “And he shall do to it as he did to the goat of the sin-offering.” Therefore, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel expound the superfluous verses, each according to his view —

And Rav Huna said: What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai,

who hold that at least two placements of the blood of the sin-offering on the altar are indispensable for atonement?

As it is written,

“horns, horns, horns.”

And Beit Shammai hold that the reading is primary, and we read the word “horns” in the plural;

there are six here.

Four

are expounded

for the mitzva,

meaning that it is a mitzva to place the blood on all four horns.

And two

are expounded

to make it indispensable.

Therefore, the placement of at least two placements is indispensable.

And Beit Hillel

hold that “the tradition is primary,” and therefore they expound as follows:

“Horns,”

the one occurrence written in the plural yields two.

And the two occurrences of

“horn,” “horn,”

each written in the singular, yield two more.

There are here

in total

four.

Three

are expounded

for the mitzva, and one to make it indispensable.

But the Gemara asks concerning Beit Hillel:

Perhaps all of them,

all four horns, are

for the mitzva

alone. If so, from where do we learn that one is indispensable? Why should the law not be that even if he placed nothing at all, he effected atonement after the fact?

The Gemara answers: This is impossible, because

atonement for nothing,

without anything at all, meaning without any placement of blood on the altar,

we do not find,

we have found no such case. Therefore, at least one placement is required.

Rabbi Shimon —

from this

as it is taught:

The walls of a sukka must be at least

two in accordance with their halakhic form,

complete walls, seven handbreadths long, standing at one angle to each other,

and

an additional wall,

a third,

is sufficient

even

if it is one

handbreadth

wide and ten handbreadths high. These are the words of the Sages.

And

whereas

Rabbi Shimon says: Three

walls

in accordance with their halakhic form,

complete walls,

and

the

fourth wall need be only a handbreadth.

And there, the Gemara explained [according to one interpretation]:

With regard to what,

on the basis of which exposition

do they disagree,

the Sages and Rabbi Shimon?

The Sages hold: “The tradition is primary.” And Rabbi Shimon holds: “The reading is primary.”

And the Gemara explains:

The Sages hold that the tradition is primary,

as it is stated [Leviticus 23]: “You shall reside in booths for seven days.” And it is further written there: “Every native Israelite shall reside in booths,” and it is further written there: “For I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths.”

“In booths, in booths,”

according to the tradition, are written in the singular.

“In booths,”

is in the plural.

There are here four

expositions.

Subtract

from them

one verse,

one verse that is not superfluous for exposition concerning the number of walls, because it is needed

for itself,

to teach us the basic mitzva of sukka.

Three remain,

three expositions remain for three walls.

The halakha came,

the halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai came and

reduced the third,

reducing the third wall, which need not be complete,

and established it as a handbreadth,

establishing that it is sufficient for it to be one handbreadth.

And Rabbi Shimon holds

that the reading is primary, and the reading of the verses is:

“In booths, in booths, in booths,”

all three in the plural. There are therefore

six. Subtract

from them

one verse,

one verse [written in the plural]

for itself,

to teach us the basic mitzva of sukka.

Four remain,

four expositions remain for four walls.

The halakha came,

the halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai came and

reduced the fourth,

reducing the fourth wall, which need not be complete,

and established it as a handbreadth,

establishing that it is sufficient for it to be one handbreadth.

Thus, Rabbi Shimon holds that the reading is primary.

Rabbi Akiva —

from this

as it is taught: Rabbi Akiva says: From where

do we learn

with regard to a quarter-log of blood

that emerges from a corpse [a quarter-log of blood is the measure of blood from a corpse that imparts corpse impurity through a tent], a quarter-log

that emerged from two corpses and imparts

corpse

impurity through a tent,

by combining the blood from the two corpses to reach the measure of a quarter-log?

As it is stated

in the passage concerning the impurity of a priest:

“And he shall not enter over any dead souls,”

that he may not enter a tent in which there are dead souls. Although the tradition is “soul,” in the singular, nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva holds that the reading is primary, and we read it in the plural, teaching us to expound:

two souls, and one measure

of death, namely, a quarter-log.

And the Sages,

the Sages disagree and hold that a quarter-log of blood from two corpses does not impart impurity, because they hold:

“It is written”

in the singular, and the tradition is primary; therefore, this blood does not impart impurity.

Thus, Rabbi Akiva holds that the reading is primary.

These, until this point, are the words of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov challenged this,

concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement:

Is there,

indeed, a tanna

who does not have,

who does not hold

“the reading is primary”?!

But it is taught:

It is written [Exodus 23]: “You shall not cook a kid

in its mother’s

fat,

perhaps the Torah means to say that it is prohibited to cook a kid in the ḥelev [forbidden fat] of its mother, but it is permitted to cook it in the milk drawn from its mother?