## Sanhedrin Daf 4b

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

אָמַרְתָּ: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You** therefore **say** in response: The **vocalization** of the Torah **is authoritative,** and the verse prohibits cooking the young goat in its mother’s milk.


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

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, וְרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: רַבִּי סָבַר ״יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים״ – אַחֲרִינֵי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי ״יַרְשִׁיעֻן״ – דְּהַאיְךְ וְהַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 **“the court shall condemn”** 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 **“shall condemn”** means **these** judges, i.e., **those** who have already been mentioned, and therefore there are only three.


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

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.

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


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

בֵּית הִלֵּל, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר״, ״וְכִפֶּר״, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“And** the priest **shall make atonement** for him” (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to a sin-offering of a goat brought by an ordinary person: “And the priest **shall make atonement** for him” (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to a sin-offering of a lamb brought by an ordinary person: **“And** the priest **shall make atonement** for him” (Leviticus 4:35), repeating this term three times. This repetition is **due to the** following **logical inference:**


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

וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: נֶאֱמַר דָּמִים לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֱמַר דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה. מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת כִּיפֵּר, אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת כִּיפֵּר.

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


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

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֱמַר דָּמִים בַּחוּץ, וְנֶאֱמַר דָּמִים בִּפְנִים. מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בִּפְנִים – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִמַּתָּנוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם, אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּחוּץ – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִמַּתָּנוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

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


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

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִפְּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת, מֵחַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ זֶה, שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת.

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


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר״, ״וְכִפֶּר״, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין. ״כִּיפֵּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה, ״כִּיפֵּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם, ״כִּיפֵּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since there are two legitimate inferences, the *halakha* cannot be decided through a logical inference. Therefore, **the verse states: “And** the priest **shall make atonement,” “And** the priest **shall make atonement,” “And** the priest **shall make atonement,”** three times, **due to the logical inference.** The verses are interpreted as follows: “The priest **shall make atonement,” even though he presented only three** presentations, and then a second verse repeats: “The priest **shall make atonement,” even though he presented only two** presentations, and then a third verse repeats: “The priest **shall make atonement,” even though he presented only one** presentation. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel’s opinion.


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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבָּנַן בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר, סְכָכָא לָא בָּעֵי קְרָא. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי, סְכָכָא בָּעֵי קְרָא.

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


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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן, בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר ״נְפָשֹׁת״ – תַּרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי ״נְפָשֹׁת״ – דְּעָלְמָא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 **“bodies”** in plural **indicates two.** Consequently, a quarter*-log* of blood that emanated from two corpses also renders one impure. **And the Rabbis hold** that **“bodies”** 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.


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

וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״לְטוֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does everyone** actually hold that the **vocalization** of the Torah **is authoritative? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the number of compartments in the phylacteries of the head, the verse states: “It shall be for a sign upon your hand, and **for *totafot*** between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), with the word *totafot* spelled deficient, without a second *vav*, in a way that can be read as singular; and again: “They shall be **for *totafot*** between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), spelled as a singular word; and again: “They shall be **for *totafot*** between your eyes” (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.**


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, טַט בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, פַּת בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.

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


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

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם פְּלִיגִי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּשָׁנֵי קְרָא מִמָּסוֹרֶת. אֲבָל הַאי ״חֵלֶב״ וַ״חֲלֵב״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’s 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 [*ḥalev*] and fat [*ḥelev*] 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.**


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

וַהֲרֵי ״יִרְאֶה״ ״יֵרָאֶה״ דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, וּפְלִיגִי? דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא: הַסּוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו – פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״יִרְאֶה״ ״יֵרָאֶה״ – כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבָּא לִרְאוֹת כָּךְ בָּא לֵירָאוֹת. מָה לִרְאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו, אַף לֵירָאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** the words: **“Shall see”** and **“shall appear” are** written in **an identical** matter, **and** nevertheless the Sages **disagree** about which reading is authoritative. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Yoḥanan 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:** “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [*yera’eh*] before the Lord God” (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’eh*,** 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’s eyes, so too,** the obligation **to appear** applies only to one who comes **with** the sight of **both his eyes.**


###### Sanhedrin 4b:16
[Sanhedrin 4b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4b:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי״, דֶּרֶךְ בִּישּׁוּל אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** The reason all agree that there is a prohibition to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk and not in its mother’s fat is that **the verse states: “You shall not cook a young goat”** (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.


###### Sanhedrin 4b:17
[Sanhedrin 4b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/4b:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: Cases of **monetary law** are adjudicated **by three** judges.