Sanhedrin 7

Chapter 7

א ורבנן ירשיען כתיב
1 <a rel="footnote" href="sanhedrin_3.html">Previous Daf</a> R. Isaac b. Joseph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: R. Jose. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב א"ר יצחק בר (יוסי) אמר ר' יוחנן רבי ורבי יהודה בן רועץ ובית שמאי ור"ש ור' עקיבא כולהו סבירא להו יש אם למקרא
2 said in the name of R. Johanan: Rabbi and R. Judah b. Ro'ez, the Shammaites. R. Simeon and R. Akiba, all hold that <i>Mikra</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit. 'Mikra has a mother,' or' these is preference to Mikra (Halper. B., ZAW. XXX, p. 100), i.e. the reading of the sacred text according to the Kere [H] the established vocalization has an authentic origin, hence well-founded, as distinct from the 'Masorah the Kethib, [H] the traditional text of consonants without vowels.] ');"><sup>3</sup></span> is determinant in Biblical exposition.
ג רבי הא דאמרן
3 Rabbi's opinion is reflected in what has been said; that he reads <i>yarshi'un</i>. The opinion of R. Judah b. Ro'ez is given in the following: For it has been taught: The disciples of R. Judah b. Ro'ez asked him: Why not read <i>shibe'im</i> [seventy] instead of <i>shebu'ayim</i> [two weeks]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse: If she bear a female child, she shall be unclean etc. Lev. XII, 5. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד ור' יהודה בן רועץ דתניא שאלו תלמידים את ר' יהודה בן רועץ אקרא אני (ויקרא יב, ה) שבעים יכול תהא יולדת נקבה טמאה שבעים
4 [extending the period of uncleanliness to seventy days]? He answered: The law has fixed the period of purity and impurity in the case of a male child and it has fixed the period of purity and impurity in case of a female child. Just as the period of purification after the birth of a female child is double that after the birth of a male child, so must the period of uncleanness after the birth of a female child be no more than double that after the birth of a male child [which is only seven days]. After they left him he sought them out again and said 'You have no need of that explanation since <i>Mikra</i> is determinant, and we read <i>shebu'ayim</i> [two weeks]. The opinion of the Shammaites is advanced in the following [Mishnah]: For we learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 36b. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה אמר להן טימא וטיהר בזכר וטימא וטיהר בנקבה מה כשטיהר בזכר בנקבה כפלים אף כשטימא בזכר בנקבה כפלים
5 Beth Shammai said: If the blood of sacrifices that is to be sprinkled on the outer altar was applied only once,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of two sprinklings constituting four at the two opposite angles of the altar. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> the offering is valid, as it is said, <i>the blood of thy sacrifice shall be poured out</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו לאחר שיצאו יצא ומחזיר אחריהם אמר להן אי אתם זקוקים לכך שבועיים קרינן ויש אם למקרא
6 [denoting one application]. In the case of a sin offering, however, they hold that two applications are required; but the Hillelites hold that in the case of a sin offering also a single sprinkling effects atonement. And R. Huna said: What is the Shammaites' reason for their opinion? — It is that the plural 'karnoth' [horns of the altar] occurs three times in this context<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 25, 30, 34. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> denoting six, and so implying that four sprinklings are prescribed in the first instance, but that two are indispensable. But the Hillelites argue that since '<i>karnoth</i>'<sup><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Following the Mikra. ');"><sup>9</sup></span></sup>
ז ב"ש דתנן ב"ש אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת כיפר (שנאמר (דברים יב, כז) ודם זבחיך ישפך) ובחטאת שתי מתנות ובית הלל אומרים אף בחטאת שנתנן במתנה אחת כיפר
7 is twice written defectively, and can be read '<i>karnath</i>'<sup><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] instead of [H] cf. the feminine ending at. ');"><sup>10</sup></span></sup> </sup> [singular], only four sprinklings are implied, three being prescribed in the first instance, and that only one is indispensable. But why not argue that all the four are merely prescribed without a single one being indispensable? — We do not find an act of expiation effected without an accompanying rite.
ח ואמר רב הונא מ"ט דב"ש (ויקרא ד, ז) קרנות קרנות קרנות הרי כאן שש ארבע למצוה ושתים לעכב
8 R. Simeon's opinion is expressed in the following [Baraitha]: It has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 6b. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> A <i>Sukkah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A booth, erected for the Festival of Booths. v. Glos. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט ובית הלל אומרים קרנות קרנת קרנת הרי כאן ארבע ג' למצוה ואחת לעכב
9 needs at least two walls of the prescribed dimensions and a third of the width of at least a hand-breadth. R. Simeon says; Three complete walls and the fourth the width of a hand-breadth. What is really their point of dispute? — The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous opinion quoted first. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> hold that Masorah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 10, n. 4. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
י ואימא כולהו למצוה כפרה בכדי לא אשכחן
10 is determinant in Biblical exegesis, while R. Simeon holds that Mikra is determinant. The Rabbis, taking the former view, argue that as the word 'bassukoth' which occurs three times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the command of Festival of Booths. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> is written once plene [in the plural] and twice defectively<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] and [H] Lev. XXIII, 42-43. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יא ר"ש דתניא שתים כהלכתן ושלישית אפילו טפח ר"ש אומר שלש כהלכתן ורביעית אפילו טפח במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת ור"ש סבר יש אם למקרא
11 making in all four references. So, subtracting one as required for the command itself, there are three left. Next comes the Sinaitic <i>Halachah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The traditional interpretation of the Law traceable to Sinai, see Hoffmann, Die Erste Mischna, p. 3. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and diminishes the third and fixes it at a hand-breadth. But R. Simeon is of the opinion that Mikra is determinant and thus all the three <i>bassukkoth</i> are to be read in the plural, making a total of six. One of these is required for the command itself, leaving four, and the fourth is diminished in virtue of the Sinaitic <i>Halachah</i>, to a handbreadth.
יב רבנן סברי יש אם למסורת בסכת בסכת בסוכות הרי כאן ארבע דל חד קרא לגופיה פשו להו תלת אתאי הלכתא גרעתא לשלישית ואוקימתא אטפח
12 As to R. Akiba's opinion — it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 72a. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> R. Akiba said: Whence is it deduced that a fourth of a <i>log</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A liquid measure, about two-thirds of a pint. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג ור"ש סבר בסוכות בסוכות בסוכות הרי כאן שש דל חד קרא לגופיה פשו להו ארבע אתאי הלכתא גרעתא לרביעית ואוקמיה אטפח
13 of blood which issues front two corpses carries uncleanness according to the law relating to the pollution of tents.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 14. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> It is said: <i>He shall not go in unto any dead body</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 11; Lit., 'souls of the dead', the soul denoting blood, as the life-force, cf. Deut. XII, 23., and the loss of a quarter of a log is regarded as the loss of vital blood. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יד ר"ע דתניא ר"ע אומר מניין לרביעית דם שיצאה משני מתים שמטמא באהל שנאמר (ויקרא כא, יא) על כל נפשות מת לא יבא שתי נפשות ושיעור א' ורבנן נפשת כתיב
14 [The plural <i>nafshoth</i> translated 'body' indicates that] even from two bodies a single [vital] quantity suffices to carry uncleanness; but the Rabbis argue that it is written <i>nafshath</i> [singular], [denoting that a vital quantity can defile only if it issues from one corpse]. R. Aha b. Jacob questioned this statement of R. Isaac b. Joseph — Is there no one [apart from those above mentioned] who does not accept the <i>Mikra</i> as determinant? Has it not been taught: <i>Thou shalt not seethe a kid in the milk of</i> [<i>bahaleb</i>]<sup><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');"><sup>22</sup></span></sup>
טו מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב מי איכא דלית לי' יש אם למקרא והתניא (שמות כג, יט) בחלב אמו יכול בחלב
15 its <i>mother</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 19. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> in which verse you might read <i>beheleb</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [in the fat of]?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter