Sanhedrin 4a — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis,

what will they answer to Rabbi’s exposition!?

The Gemara answers: “

‘They will condemn’ is written

in the Torah without the letter vav between the letter ayin and the letter nun. This deficient spelling was transmitted to Moses as a tradition from Sinai, and in the spelling of this word there is the meaning of the singular form. And the Sages and Rabbi disputed the question of 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 there are words whose reading based only on their spelling, without the vocalization, differs from the form of their reading according to the vocalization.

The ordinary form, of reading according to the vocalization of the word, is called “the reading.” Whereas reading according to the spelling without the vocalization is called “the 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].

Sometimes the meaning of the spelling alone [“the tradition”] contradicts the meaning according to the vocalization [“the reading”]. And the tannaim disputed how to act in a place of contradiction between the meaning of the “tradition” of the spelling and the meaning of “the reading,” of reading according to the vocalization:

There are those who hold, “the reading is primary,” that the principal derivation is from what is implied by the form of the reading with the vocalization. For example, Rabbi, who holds that since the reading of “they will condemn” according to the vocalization has the meaning of the plural, Scripture spoke of the plural.

And there are those who hold, “the tradition is primary,” that even though the word is read according to the vocalization as it is read, nevertheless, since in the Torah it was written in a form that permits reading according to the spelling without the vocalization, and there is a tradition from Sinai to read it thus, the principal derivation from the verse must be from the form of the spelling, according to the reading based on the tradition.

For example, the word “they will condemn,” which the Sages too admit is read according to the vocalization, “they will condemn,” in the plural; but since according to the tradition this word is to be read without the vocalization, and according to the spelling alone the meaning of the word is “he will condemn,” in the singular, therefore this verse is expounded with regard to an individual.

Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

These tannaim, namely:

Rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beit Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva—all of them

all these

hold “

the reading is primary.”

Rabbi—

this is what we said,

that he expounds “they will condemn” in the plural.

And Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz—

from this

as it was 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 and three days she shall remain with the blood of purity [even though she sees blood, she is pure. Rashi].

And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be impure for two weeks, like her menstrual impurity. And for sixty days and six days she shall remain with the blood of purity.”

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

The students asked Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz: ‘I may read it,’

I may 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

is it possible that the

woman

who gives birth to a female should be impure for seventy

days?

He said to them

Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz said to the students: It is not possible to say this, because

He made impure and made pure

Scripture

with regard to a male,

for concerning a woman who gives birth to a male, the Torah said that she has days of impurity-blood and days of purity-blood,

and He made impure and made pure

Scripture

with regard to a female,

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

What,

just as

when He made pure

Scripture

with

a woman who gives birth to a

male [thirty-three days of purity-blood], corresponding to them He made pure

with

a woman who gives birth to a

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

so too when He made impure with regard to a male

for seven days, correspondingly

with regard to a female

He made impure

for twice as long—

two weeks.

And the beraita relates:

After they left

the students,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz went out

Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz

and went after them,

he searched for them,

and said to them: Indeed,

you do not

need this,

this exposition, because

“two weeks” is what we read, and the reading is primary.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz holds that the reading is primary.

Beit Shammai,

from this

as we learned

in tractate Zevahim [36b]:

Beit Shammai say: All

the offerings

whose blood is given

whose blood-giving is

on the outer altar,

if he gave it

their blood on the altar, even if he gave

one placement—

he effected atonement,

after the fact, although initially he must give more placements of the blood [as

it is stated: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,”] one pouring is implied.

which implies a single pouring.

And with regard to a sin-offering,

the one bringing the offering does not have atonement until the kohen gives from the blood at least

two placements.

And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin-offering, if he gave it in one placement, he effected atonement.

And with regard to a sin-offering, according to everyone it is impossible to learn from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” that one placement is sufficient, because with a sin-offering there is no “pouring” of the blood; rather, the kohen gives some of the blood with his finger on the altar.

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 4] three times with regard to the outer sin-offerings: “And he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering.” Once with regard to a leader who sinned; once with regard to the she-goat of an individual who sinned; and once with regard to the ewe of an individual who sinned.

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

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

who hold that giving at least two placements of the sin-offering’s blood on the altar prevents atonement?

For it is written,

“horn, horn, horns.”

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

so here there are six.

Four

are expounded

for the mitzva,

for it is a mitzva to give the blood on the four horns.

And two

are expounded

to prevent atonement.

Therefore giving at least two placements prevents atonement.

And Beit Hillel

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

“Horns”

the one occurrence, stated in the plural, yields two here.

And the two

“horn, horn,”

each written in the singular, are another two.

So here there are

in total

four.

Three

are expounded

for the mitzva, and one to prevent atonement.

But the Gemara asks concerning the words of Beit Hillel:

And say that all of them,

all four horns, are

for the mitzva

only; if so, from where do we learn that one prevents atonement? And why should the law not be that even if he gave nothing, he effected atonement after the fact?

And the Gemara answers: This is not possible, because

atonement without basis,

without anything, that is, without any placement of blood on the altar,

we do not find,

we have not found. Therefore at least one placement is required.

Rabbi Shimon—

from this

as it was taught:

The walls of a sukka must be at least

two according to their law,

complete, seven handbreadths long, standing at one corner, one perpendicular to the other,

and

another wall,

a third,

and it is sufficient

even

if it was one handbreadth

wide,

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

And

whereas

Rabbi Shimon says: three

walls

according to their law,

complete,

and

the

fourth wall even one handbreadth.

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

With what,

with which exposition

do they dispute,

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 dwell in booths for seven days.” And it is further written there: “Every native Israelite shall dwell in booths,” and it is further written there: “For I caused the children of Israel to dwell in booths.”

“In a booth, in a booth,”

according to the tradition they are in the singular.

“In booths,”

is in the plural.

So here there are four

expositions.

Subtract,

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 very mitzva of sukka;

three remain,

three expositions remain for three walls.

The halakha came,

the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai came,

and deducted from the third,

reducing the third wall, which need not be complete,

and established it at one handbreadth,

establishing it at one handbreadth, for it is sufficient that it 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. So here there are

six. Subtract,

subtract from them

one verse,

one verse [written in the plural]

for itself,

to teach us the very mitzva of sukka;

four remain,

four expositions remain for four walls.

The halakha came,

the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai came,

and deducted from the fourth,

reducing the fourth wall, which need not be complete,

and established it at one handbreadth,

establishing it at one handbreadth, for it is sufficient that it be one handbreadth.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon holds, “the reading is primary.”

Rabbi Akiva—

from this

as it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: From where

do we learn

a quarter-log of blood

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

that issued from two corpses and imparts impurity through

impurity of

a tent,

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

As it is stated [in the passage of Emor] concerning the impurity of a kohen:

in the passage concerning the impurity of a priest:

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

that he shall not enter a tent in which there are dead souls. And although the tradition is “soul” in the singular, nevertheless Rabbi Akiva holds that “the reading is primary,” and we read “souls” 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

“‘souls’ is written”

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

It follows that Rabbi Akiva holds, “the reading is primary.”

Up to here are the words of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov challenged it,

concerning the words of Rabbi Yohanan:

Is there,

is there a tanna

who does not have,

who does not hold

“the reading is primary”!?

But it was taught,

it is written [Exodus 23], “You shall not cook a kid

in the milk of its mother”:

perhaps in suet,

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