## Sanhedrin Daf 4a

###### Sanhedrin 4a:1
[Sanhedrin 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:1)

וְרַבָּנַן: ״יַרְשִׁיעֻן״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how would **the Rabbis** respond to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s proof? They would say that although the term: **“Shall condemn”** 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:2
[Sanhedrin 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 Yitzḥak bar Yosei says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:3
[Sanhedrin 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:3)

רַבִּי, הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the basis for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s assertion with regard to each of the *tanna’im* 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: “He whom the court shall condemn” (Exodus 22:8) deriving a requirement for five judges in cases of monetary law based on the vocalized plural pronunciation of the term: “Shall condemn.”


###### Sanhedrin 4a:4
[Sanhedrin 4a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:4)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, דְּתַנְיָא: שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידִים אֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ: אֶקְרָא אֲנִי ״שִׁבְעִים״, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה טְמֵאָה שִׁבְעִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “But 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” (Leviticus 12:5). Based on the written consonantal text, **I can read** the amount of time she is impure as: **“Seventy [*shivim*]** days,” and not as: “Two weeks [*shevuayim*].” One **might** have thought, therefore, that a woman who **gives birth to a female should be impure** for **seventy** days.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:5
[Sanhedrin 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:5)

אָמַר לָהֶן: טִימֵּא וְטִיהֵר בַּזָּכָר, וְטִימֵּא וְטִיהֵר בַּנְּקֵבָה. מָה כְּשֶׁטִּיהֵר בַּזָּכָר – בַּנְּקֵבָה כִּפְלַיִם, אַף כְּשֶׁטִּימֵּא בַּזָּכָר – בַּנְּקֵבָה כִּפְלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “Two weeks,” and not according to the consonantal text, which could be read: “Seventy.”


###### Sanhedrin 4a:6
[Sanhedrin 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:6)

לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ, יָצָא וּמַחֲזִיר אַחֲרֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶן: אִי אַתֶּם זְקוּקִים לְכָךְ. ״שְׁבוּעַיִים״ קָרֵינַן, וְיֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: **“Two weeks,” and** the **vocalization** of the Torah **is authoritative.**


###### Sanhedrin 4a:7
[Sanhedrin 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:7)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. וּבְחַטָּאת – שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 (*Zevaḥim* 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: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out** against the altar of the Lord your God” (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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:8
[Sanhedrin 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:8)

וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? ״קַרְנֹת״, ״קַרְנֹת״, ״קַרְנֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ: אַרְבַּע לְמִצְוָה, וּשְׁתַּיִם לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Huna says: What is the reasoning** for the opinion **of Beit Shammai?** The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the **horns** of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25); and “The priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it on the **horns** of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30); and again: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it on the **horns** of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of plural, i.e., “horns,” 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:9
[Sanhedrin 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:9)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: קַרְנוֹת, קַרְנַת, קַרְנַת – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, וְאַחַת לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel say:** The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text. The word **“horns”** is written once plene, with a *vav*, which means that it must be read in the plural; and the other two times the words **“horns”** and **“horns”** 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:10
[Sanhedrin 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:10)

וְאֵימָא: כּוּלְּהוּ לְמִצְוָה? כַּפָּרָה בִּכְדִי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:11
[Sanhedrin 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּשְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ כְּהִלְכָתָן, וּרְבִיעִית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Sanhedrin 4a:12
[Sanhedrin 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:12)

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת. ״בַּסֻּכָּת״, ״בַּסֻּכָּת״, ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע. דַּל חַד קְרָא לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּלָת. אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא, גְרַעְתָּא לִשְׁלִישִׁית, וְאוֹקֵימְתָּא אַטֶּפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The Rabbis hold that** the **tradition** of the manner in which the verses are written **is authoritative.** The Torah states: “You 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: “All that are homeborn in Israel shall reside **in *sukkot*”** spelled the same way. And in the next verse it states: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside **in *sukkot*,”** 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.**


###### Sanhedrin 4a:13
[Sanhedrin 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:13)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: ״בַּסֻּכֹּת״, ״בַּסֻּכֹּת״, ״בַּסֻּכּוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ. דַּל חַד קְרָא לְגוּפֵיהּ, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ אַרְבַּע. אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא גְרַעְתָּא לִרְבִיעִית, וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ אַטֶּפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon holds** that the vocalization is authoritative. Since the verses state: “You shall reside **in *sukkot*,”** and: “All that are homeborn in Israel shall reside **in *sukkot*,”** and: “So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside **in *sukkot*,”** 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:14
[Sanhedrin 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:14)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִין לִרְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁיָּצְאָה מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל כׇּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״ – שְׁתֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת וְשִׁיעוּר אֶחָד. וְרַבָּנַן: ״נפשת״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“He shall not come upon any dead bodies”** (Leviticus 21:11). The word “bodies” is pronounced as a plural word, and since the Torah teaches elsewhere that: “The blood is the life” (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 **“bodies” 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.


###### Sanhedrin 4a:15
[Sanhedrin 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4a:15)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מִי אִיכָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ ״יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא״? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ״ – יָכוֹל ״בְּחֵלֶב״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s 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’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “You shall not cook a young goat **in its mother’s milk [*baḥalev*]”** (Exodus 23:19). One **might** have thought the verse should be read as prohibiting the cooking of the young goat **in the fat [*beḥelev*]** of the mother, and there is no prohibition against cooking the meat with milk.