Sanhedrin 4b — the Talmud in English

You said,

you have to answer and say:

there is a basis in the reading!

And the reading is “in milk” [with a hataf-patah beneath the het, which is the construct form of halav with a kamatz]. And there is no tanna who would disagree with this beraita, because from this verse the prohibition of meat with milk is learned, without any dissenter.

It follows that everyone holds: “there is a basis in the reading”!

And therefore Rav Aha bar Yaakov explains that indeed all the tannaim hold that there is a basis in the reading.

Rather, everyone,

all the tannaim hold

“there is a basis in the reading.”

And Rabbi and the Rabbis,

both hold that we read yarshiyun in the plural. And

in this they disagree,

they disagree concerning another exposition:

Rabbi holds: “the judges will condemn”—others,

apart from the judge mentioned above, two more judges will condemn, and he learns the upper matter from the lower matter: just as here they are two, so above in the verse they are two. That makes four. And since an even-numbered court is not formed, one more is added to them, and they are five.

And the Rabbis hold: “they will condemn”

in the plural

of this one and of that one,

this judge written here together with the judge written above, and they are two. And because an even-numbered court is not formed, a third is added to them, and they are three.

And likewise Rav Aha bar Yaakov disagrees with what Rabbi Yohanan said, that Rabbi Judah ben Ro'etz is the one who holds that there is a basis in the reading, implying that the Sages disagreed with him and hold that there is a basis in the written form.

And Rabbi Judah ben Ro'etz,

who said “and she shall be impure for two weeks” because there is a basis in the reading—

the Rabbis did not disagree with him,

there is no tanna who disagrees with him; rather, everyone holds: “there is a basis in the reading.”

And likewise Rav Aha bar Yaakov disagrees with what Rabbi Yohanan said, that Beit Hillel hold “there is a basis

in the written form.” Rather,

Beit Hillel

have another exposition, from which they learn that, regarding a sin-offering whose blood was placed as only one placement, after the fact it effects atonement.

For it was taught: “and he shall effect atonement,” “and he shall effect atonement,” “and he shall effect atonement”—because of the inference

from the law!

That is, the Torah wrote three times [Leviticus 4] “and the priest shall effect atonement for him”: once in the passage of the ruler’s goat, which he brings as a sin-offering; the second in the passage of the female goat, which an individual brings for his sin; and the third concerning the ewe of an individual, which he brings for his sin. These verses are superfluous for an exposition, and they came to teach that even if all four placements were not made on the four corners, it effects atonement.

And why do we need the three expositions? Because of the inference from the law: if the Torah had not written them in order to teach that the four placements do not prevent validity, but only one does, I would have learned from a comparison [which is also called an “inference from the law”] that they do prevent validity.

And this is the comparison, by which it would have been possible to reason:

And is it not an inference from the law

that is, it is possible to learn and reason by the comparison:

“blood” is stated

concerning offerings whose blood is placed on the altar

below,

beneath the scarlet line, which is the middle of the altar [in a burnt-offering, peace-offering, and guilt-offering],

and “blood” is stated

concerning offerings placed

above

the scarlet line [in an animal sin-offering, concerning which “corners” is stated].

Just as with the blood stated below,

in the other offerings, whose blood is placed below the scarlet line,

if he placed it in one placement, it effected atonement.

For even Beit Shammai hold that concerning the other offerings, apart from a sin-offering, we learn from the verse “and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” that even with one placement one has fulfilled the obligation.

So too with the blood stated above,

in an animal sin-offering,

if he placed it in one placement, it effected atonement.

And indeed, without the exposition from the superfluous verses, we would have learned through the comparison that it effects atonement.

But the beraita brings an opposing comparison, to learn that even one of the placements prevents validity.

Or, go

it is possible that you should go

by this

method of learning

instead:

“Blood” is stated outside,

in sin-offerings whose blood is placed on the outer altar, such as the ruler’s goat, and the ewe and female goat of an individual,

and “blood” is stated inside,

in sin-offerings whose blood is placed inside the Sanctuary, on the inner altar, and on the curtain and between the staves, such as the sin-offering of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull for the hidden matter of the community.

Just as with the blood stated inside,

the law is that if he

omitted one of the placements—

he has accomplished nothing,

and this sin-offering does not effect atonement, as is learned in tractate Menahot [27a]—

so too the blood

of the sin-offerings

stated outside,

perhaps the law will be that if he

omitted one of the placements, he has accomplished nothing.

And since there is a comparison in this direction and a comparison in that direction, therefore

it appears

from reasoning

to which is similar

the law of the external sin-offerings:

We judge

offerings

outside,

the external sin-offerings,

from

offerings

outside,

the guilt-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offering.

And we do not judge

offerings

outside from inside,

from the sin-offerings performed inside.

Or go by this method,

for an opposing comparison: we judge

a sin-offering and four corners,

the external sin-offerings, which are “sin-offerings,” brought to effect atonement for a sin and whose mitzva is to place their blood on four corners,

from a sin-offering and four corners,

from the internal sin-offerings, which are likewise sin-offerings to effect atonement, and whose blood is also placed on the four corners of the inner altar.

And let this not prove

this,

namely, the blood of the burnt-offering, peace-offering, and guilt-offering,

which is not a sin-offering,

which are not sin-offerings,

and

whose blood is not placed on

four corners,

but on “the altar all around,” in two placements that are four.

And therefore, since it was more reasonable to learn from the internal sin-offerings that one of their placements prevents validity, the Torah came to teach us—

The verse therefore says: “and he shall effect atonement,” “and he shall effect atonement,” “and he shall effect atonement”—because of the inference from the law,

so that we should not compare it to the internal sin-offerings, but say:

“he shall effect atonement,”

to say that it effects atonement

even though he placed only three. “He shall effect atonement,” even though he placed only two. “He shall effect atonement,” even though he placed only one.

And this is the reason that Beit Hillel disagree with Beit Shammai and hold that one placement prevents validity, and not because they hold “there is a basis in the written form.”

And likewise Rav Aha bar Yaakov disagrees with what Rabbi Yohanan said, that Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree whether there is a basis in the reading or in the written form.

And Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis,

all hold that there is a basis in the reading. And the first “in booths” is stated for itself, that is, for the mitzva of a booth. And four expositions remain, from the two instances of “in booths”:

Rabbi Shimon holds: the roofing does not require a verse.

There is no need to derive the roofing through one exposition, because it can be learned from the meaning of the first verse, since a booth is not called a booth without roofing. Therefore four expositions remain for four walls, and the halakha given to Moses at Sinai comes to inform us that one of the walls need be only a handbreadth.

And the Rabbis hold: the roofing requires a verse.

According to them, one exposition comes to inform us that a booth requires roofing, and three expositions remain for three walls. And the halakha given to Moses at Sinai comes to inform us that the third wall need be only a handbreadth.

And therefore the Sages hold: “two according to their halakha, and the third even a handbreadth,” and not because they hold that there is a basis in the written form.

And likewise concerning the disagreement of Rabbi Akiva and the Sages regarding the joining of a quarter-log of blood from two corpses—

And Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis,

all hold “there is a basis in the reading,” but

in this they disagree:

Rabbi Akiva holds: “souls” implies two.

Therefore he declares impure blood that comes from two corpses.

And the Rabbis hold: “souls” ordinarily implies—

for each one of the souls in the world [this is its meaning and the way of the Torah, to speak in the plural]. And he declares impure only a quarter-log of blood from one corpse.

These are the words of Rav Aha bar Yaakov, who holds that all the tannaim hold that there is a basis in the reading.

And the Gemara objects:

And

is it possible to say that

everyone

holds

“there is a basis in the reading”!?

For it was taught,

we have learned in a beraita:

“totafot, totafot, totafot” [see the note ],

(see the note ),

here there are four

compartments. Two from “totafot, totafot”—in the singular—and two from “totafot,” in the plural. These are

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Whereas

Rabbi Akiva says: it is not necessary

for this exposition, but

“tat”

in the place called

Katpi

means

two, and “pat” in

the place called

Africa

also means

two;

that makes four.

And certainly the reading in all the verses is totafot, in the plural, and nevertheless Rabbi Ishmael expounds them in the singular, according to the written form.

It is thus proven that Rabbi Ishmael holds that there is a basis in the written form.

And therefore the Gemara retracts what Rav Aha bar Yaakov said, that there is no one who holds that there is a basis in the written form, and gives another answer to the difficulty from “in the milk of its mother,” from which it appears that they do not expound the written form.

Rather,

let us answer that

in fact,

the truth is that the tannaim

disagree,

they disagree about this, and there is one who holds that there is a basis in the written form.

And this matter applies when they disagree,

when do they disagree and say that there is a basis in the written form?

Where the verse differs from the written form,

if in the reading there is a change in the letters from the written form, so that there are more letters in the reading than in the written form.

But this “milk and milk,” since they are identical,

since they contain the same letters and the change is only in the manner of reading, then everyone agrees that

there is a basis in the reading.

But the Gemara objects:

But “he shall appear—

he shall be seen,” [as we shall explain],

as will be explained—

since they are identical,

since they contain the same letters,

and they disagree,

and nevertheless the tannaim disagree about this.

For it was taught

we learned in a beraita: the tanna

Yohanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Teima: one who is blind

in one eye

is exempt from the

mitzva of

appearing,

which is the mitzva of seeing the Presence of the Divine Presence on the pilgrimage in the Temple courtyard, together with bringing the burnt-offering of appearance,

as it is stated [Exodus 23]: “Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God,” and he expounds [see the note ]

also the reading

“he shall be seen,”

that all your males shall be seen before the Holy One, blessed is He. And also the written form

“he shall appear,”

that all your males shall come to see the Divine Presence themselves, because

just as

the Holy One, blessed is He, comes

to be seen

by all your males—which is learned from the reading “he shall be seen”—

so He comes

the Holy One, blessed is He,

to see,

that is, all your males come to see the Divine Presence, which is learned from the written form.

And therefore he expounds:

what,

just as the Holy One, blessed is He, comes

to see,

and He comes when He is “whole,” as though He were

with both His eyes,

as it is stated [Deuteronomy 11], “the eyes of the Lord your God,”

so too

when the Holy One, blessed is He,

comes to be seen

through those who make the pilgrimage, He will see them

with both eyes

of the person. And therefore a person who is blind in one eye is exempt from appearing. That is, Rabbi Judah ben Teima expounds both the reading and the written form. And the Sages disagree with him and do not expound this exposition.

In any event, it is proven from here that even though there is no change in the letters between “he shall be seen” and “he shall appear,” Rabbi Judah nevertheless expounds the written form. Consequently it is difficult: why, in “milk—milk,” do they not expound the written form!?

And the Gemara answers why they do not expound helev.

Rather, Rav Aha the son of Rav Ika said: the verse says, “You shall not cook a kid

in the milk of its mother,”

the Torah prohibited it by way of cooking.

And therefore it is prohibited only by way of cooking, which is in the mother’s milk; but with helev, fat, it is not a way of cooking, but frying. And the conclusion is: there are tannaim who hold “there is a basis in the written form,” even when the reading and the written form have the same letters; except that with regard to meat with milk, this cannot be said.

And now the Gemara returns to the law of judges.

The Sages taught: monetary

cases, which are admissions and loans, are judged

by three

laymen.