Jewish Audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף ד, and we start from the top of the עמוד. אמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף, רבי יצחק בר יוסף said, אמר רבי יוחנן, in the name of רבי יוחנן, that רבי ורבי יהודה בן רועץ ובית שמאי ורבי שמעון ורבי עקיבא כולהו סבירא להו יש אם למקרא. All these mentioned, which are רבי, רבי יהודה בן רועץ, and בית שמאי, and רבי שמעון, and רבי עקיבא, they all hold יש אם למקרא, which means that we follow a word the way it's read, and not not יש אם למסורת, which would mean we would follow the word the way it's written, because we find sometimes words in the תורה that are written one way, the מסורה was handed down from generation to generation going back to משה רבינו who heard it from השם that we should write the word a certain way, but nevertheless, when we read the word, we read it differently than the way it's written. And the question is, when we come to דרשן the word, which is the main way to דרשן? Should we mainly דרשן the word the way it is written, the מסורה, the way the מסורה was handed down to write that word, or should we דרשן the word the way it is read? Do we say יש אם למקרא, that we give more consideration to the מקרא, to the way the word is read, or do we say יש אם למסורת, that we give more consideration to the מסורה, to the way it was handed down to us, the way we should write the word, that the way the word is written, that is the way to דרשן it? And that's what רבי יצחק בר יוסף in the name of רבי יוחנן said, that these תנאים: רבי, and רבי יהודה בן רועץ, and בית שמאי, and רבי שמעון, and רבי עקיבא, they all hold יש אם למקרא, that we follow the פשט the way it is read, not the way it is written. And the גמרא is going to show where we see that all these תנאים hold that opinion.

רבי, הא דאמרן. רבי, where do we see he holds that way? This is what we had said in the previous גמרא, because in the previous גמרא we learned that רבי holds that when it comes to דיני ממונות, you must have a בית דין of five. And the reason, the גמרא said, why he holds that we must have a בית דין of five, because we learn out from the פסוק where it says אלקים, אשר ירשיעון אלקים. So that shows that you must have two, because ירשיעון, that's written with a ו before the last letter, before the נון, that is plural, ירשיעון, they will be מרשיע. So there, when it says אשר ירשיעון אלקים, automatically it shows that there is two, because it's plural, that means already two. So when it says ירשיעון אלקים, and אלקים means the judge, that automatically means two judges. Then there's another פסוק that says עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם. So we say that we compare that אלקים to the other אלקים, just like in the other פסוק אלקים, since it says ירשיעון, that means two, so this פסוק where it says אלקים, it also means two. So we have already four, and since we're not allowed to have an even בית דין, we must add one more to have five. The רבנן, who argue on רבי, and they say that it's enough to have three by דיני ממונות, the גמרא said, because they don't דרשן the word ירשיעון as plural, ובמילא it means two, because they say since the way it's written is without a ו towards the end of the word, it says ירשיען, not ירשיעון, so even though we read it ירשיעון, but since it's written ירשיען, so it is single, singular, not plural, so this אלקים means one, so automatically the other אלקים also means one, so we have two, and since we can't have an even בית דין, so we must have three. So here we see that there's a מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן, whether we דרשן the word the way it's written or the way it's read. The רבנן, they say that we דרשן the way it's written, and therefore they say it means one. רבי says we דרשן the way we read it, and since we read it ירשיעון, לשון רבים, plural, that's why we דרשן it plural, and אלקים means two. So here we see that רבי is of the opinion יש אם למקרא, that we follow a word the way we read it, not the way it's written. ורבי יהודה בן רועץ, where do we see that this is the opinion of רבי יהודה בן רועץ?

דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, שאלו תלמידים את רבי יהודה בן רועץ, the תלמידים asked רבי יהודה בן רועץ, היקרא אנא שבעים. This is concerning the דין of טומאת יולדת. When a woman gives birth to a child, the תורה says that she becomes טמאה for a certain amount of time, and afterwards, she is טהורה also for a certain amount of time. And there is a difference between giving birth to a boy or a girl. This is in the beginning of פרשת תזריע. There the תורה says that when she gives birth to a זכר, to a boy, וטמאה שבעת ימים, she should be טמאה for seven days, כימי נדת דותה תטמא, as the days when she is a נדה. Then it says ושלשים יום ושלשת ימים תשב בדמי טהרה, for thirty-three days afterwards, her blood is טהור. Then it says, ואם נקבה תלד, if she will give birth to a נקבה, to a girl, וטמאה שבועים כנדתה, she should be טמאה two weeks as a נדה, which means double as when she is a נדה. וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה, and sixty-six days she should sit on her clean blood, that for sixty-six days her blood is clean. This word where we just said that she is טמאה שבועים, two weeks, so we read the word שבועים, two weeks, but the way it's written, you could read it שבעים, 70. So they asked the קשיא to רבי יהודה בן רועץ, let us read שבעים. So יכול, I would think, תהא יולדת נקבה טמאה שבעים, that if a woman gives birth to a נקבה, to a girl, she is טמאה for 70 days, not for two weeks, 14 days, but she is טמאה for 70 days. אמר להם, so he said to them, טימא וטיהר בזכר וטימא וטיהר בנקבה. The תורה made this woman טמאה and then טהור if she gives birth to a זכר, the תורה also made the woman טמאה and then טהור if she gives birth to a נקבה. So מה כשטיהר בזכר בנקבה כפליים, just like we see that in the case of טהרה, those days that she is טהור, so by a girl it is double of by a boy, by a girl we say she is טהור for 66 days, by a boy she is טהור for 33 days, so the days of טהרה by a girl is double of the days of טהרה of a boy, so אף כשטימא בזכר בנקבה כפליים. So too, when the תורה said that she is טמאה, so by a girl she is טמאה double of the טומאה by a boy. Since by a boy she is טמאה for seven days, so we understand that by a girl she is טמאה for 14 days, and therefore we don't say she is טמאה for 70 days, but she is טמאה שבועים for two weeks, for 14 days. But אחר שיצאו, after the תלמידים went out, יצא ומחזר אחריהם, he went out and followed them, ואמר להם, and he said to them, אי אתם זקוקים לכך, you don't need this, you don't need the explanation I just gave you to know that she is not טמאה for 70 days, but for 14 days, because שבועים קרינן, because we read it שבועים, even though it says שבעים, but we read it שבועים, two weeks, ויש אם למקרא, and the main way to דרשן a פסוק is the way we read it, and therefore she is not טמאה for 70 days, but for two weeks because that's the way we read the word שבועים. So here we see that רבי יהודה בן רועץ also holds that יש אם למקרא. Concerning the original סברא that רבי יהודה בן רועץ said, that we say that just like by the טהרה it is double of the זכר, so too by the טומאה it is double of the זכר, so תוספות says that really he could have answered them differently. The פסוק, when it says that she should be טמאה two weeks, the פסוק says כנדתה, שבועים כנדתה, like her נדה. That means that by her, she is טמאה double of her נדה. A woman, her days of נדה is seven days, so when it says here שבועים כנדתה, automatically that also means to add seven days of a נדה. That's how we know that it doesn't mean 70 days, but an extra seven days, so he could have said from the word כנדתה. And also, when he answered that just like by the טהרה of a זכר the נקבה is double, so too by the טומאה, תוספות says he could have said that just like by a זכר the ימי טהרה, the days of cleanliness, is more than the days of טומאה, so too by a נקבה, the days of cleanliness should be more than the days of טומאה. And the days of טהרה by her are definitely 66 as the תורה says. Now if we're going to say that the days of טומאה are 70, so it'll come out that the days of טומאה are more than the days of טהרה, and we know that just like by a זכר the days of טהרה are more than the days of טומאה, so too by a נקבה the days of טהרה should be more than the days of טומאה. So that could have been another way to answer how we know that it's not 70 days. But this is all concerning the way he said in the הוה אמינא that we have to have לימודים. But the end was that we don't need any לימודים, since we read the word שבועים, so we דרשן it means two weeks, not 70, because יש אם למקרא.

בית שמאי, how do we know that בית שמאי also is of the opinion that יש אם למקרא? דתנן, because we learn in a משנה that בית שמאי אומרים, בית שמאי say, כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת כיפר, that all the bloods of those קרבנות that you have to spray the blood on the מזבח החיצון, on the outside מזבח, we know that there were two מזבחות in the בית המקדש, one was called the מזבח הפנימי, and one was called the מזבח החיצון. One was the inner מזבח, and one was the outer מזבח. The inner מזבח was a small מזבח that stood in the היכל, and That was only used to be מקטיר קטורת on. And only specific קרבנות, very few, would they spray the blood of those קרבנות inside the היכל against the מזבח הפנימי. Most of the קרבנות, the blood was sprayed on the outside of the היכל, in the עזרה, on the corners of the מזבח החיצון. So בית שמאי said that all the קרבנות that their blood has to be sprayed on the מזבח החיצון, and the דין is that you have to spray שתי מתנות שהן ארבע, which means two sprayings which really is four. You would go to one corner and ממש by the corner you would spray, so automatically that spray would turn to two sides. Since it's at the corners it would turn to both sides, so that is one spray, but really is divided into two. And then you would go to the other corner against it and do the same thing, so automatically you would have another one which really is two. So it would come out that you have four מתנות, four givings, four sprayings of the blood which really came from two. So בית שמאי says that all these קרבנות that their blood has to be sprayed on the outside מזבח, if you only sprayed once, כיפר, you have a כפרה, the קרבן is כשר. ובחטאת, but by a חטאת, שתי מתנות. There you must have two מתנות, two times spraying. If you sprayed once, even בדיעבד, the קרבן is פסול. The reason why by the other ones, those that have to be sprayed on the מזבח החיצון other than a חטאת, one is enough, because the פסוק says, "ודם זבחיך ישפך," that the blood of your קרבן should be poured, should be sprayed, so since it says should be sprayed, with one spraying it's enough. But concerning a חטאת, there you must have שתי מתנות, two sprayings. That's the opinion of בית שמאי.

ובית הלל אומרים, but בית הלל say, אף בחטאת, שנתן מתנה אחת, כיפר. Also by a חטאת, if you gave one מתנה, you sprayed once, it is a כפרה, the קרבן is a כשר קרבן. ואמר רב הונא, and רב הונא explained, מאי טעמא דבית שמאי? What is the reason of בית שמאי? Why do they hold that by a חטאת you must have two מתנות at least? And he says because they learn from the פסוק, it says three times the word קרנות: once קרנות, another time קרנות, and another time קרנות. קרנות means corners. Now, if it says קרנות with a ו, it means corners. So מיעוט רבים שנים. Whenever it says plural and it doesn't give an amount, automatically it's two. So since it says קרנות once that is two, another time קרנות is another two, and a third time קרנות is another two, הרי כאן שש. So here we have six קרנות the תורה says. And all these three are concerning a קרבן חטאת: one is by the חטאת of a נשיא, special דין if a נשיא, a מלך does an עבירה, he brings a חטאת, a שעיר, there it says קרנות; one is by a sheep of a regular individual who brings a קרבן חטאת; and one is by a שעירה, if a יחיד, an individual person brings a שעירה as a חטאת. In all these three places it mentions קרנות. So בית שמאי say, so since it says three times the word קרנות, that means six קרנות, so we must say the פשט, that ארבע למצוה ושתים לעכב. Since we only have to spray four times, what is the פשט when the תורה says six times? To teach us that there are two דינים: there's a דין specially concerning four, and special concerning two, together it makes up six. That four is למצוה, לכתחילה, when you spray, it should be four. But then it tells us that there is another דין concerning two, that בדיעבד, if you have two, it's enough. So that's how בית שמאי knows that בדיעבד you must have at least two. ובית הלל אומרים, but בית הלל say, and they said that בדיעבד one is enough even by a חטאת, because קרנות, קרנת, קרנת, it says three times the word, but the way it's written is that once it says with a ו, קרנות, which is plural, and the other two times it says each time קרנת without a ו. Concerning the שעיר of a נשיא, there it says קרנת without a ו. By the כשבה of a יחיד it says קרנות with a ו—at least that's the way the גמרא had the גירסא, in our חומשים there it also says without a ו, but the way the גמרא had the גירסא it was with a ו—and concerning the שעירה of a יחיד, it also says קרנת without a ו. When it says with a ו it's plural, when it says without a ו it's singular. So since two of the times are written without a ו, so each one he דרש'נס as singular. So it comes out that we have הרי כאן ארבע, we have four: one קרנות with a ו is two, then קרנת is one, and קרנת is one, together it is four. So we say ג' למצוה ואחת לעכב, that three of the four is למצוה, three of the four is only for לכתחילה, that you לכתחילה you must have those three also, but one one is לעכב, that one if you don't have it is מעכב and even בדיעבד it would be פסול. So here we see that בית הלל, they דרשנ'ד the פסוק the way it's written, but בית שמאי, they דרשנ'ד the פסוק the way it's read. And that's why they say that the פסוק tells us six times the word קרן, because we read it each time קרנות. But then the גמרא asks a קשיא on בית הלל: ואימא כולו למצוה? How do we know that one is לעכב, maybe all are למצוה? Since the תורה only has four times the word קרנות, קרן, maybe all four are only למצוה, that לכתחילה you must have all four, בדיעבד even if none of them were there it is כשר. How do we know that one of them is לעכב? And the גמרא says, because כפרה בכדי לא אשכחן, we don't ever find a כפרה without anything. Some kind of זריקה must be there, some kind of spraying of the blood must be there. So one thing is for sure that one must be. Now since we have no ראיות for any more, so we say that one must be, and the other three is only לכתחילה. בדיעבד if you don't have them it's also good. But in the meantime we see that בית שמאי is also of the opinion that יש אם למקרא. But תוספות asks a קשיא, that now that we have a סברא that כפרה בכדי לא אשכחן, that we don't find a כפרה without anything, you must have at least one, so according to that, תוספות asks, according to בית שמאי, you should have to have three בדיעבד to be מעכב. Because what makes בית שמאי say that בדיעבד you must have two? Since the תורה tells us six times קרן, and two are extra because we only have four מתנות, and two are extra, so that teaches us that there is a special דין concerning two, and that's why they say that that means that two are מעכב. But according to the סברא that we say that one must be, so now when we find in the תורה, the תורה tells us two extra, that is probably in addition to the one, since without the תורה telling us anything, we would know that one must be there. So ממילא when the תורה tells us two, that is in addition to the one we would know anyway, so לכאורה it's three. So בית שמאי should have said that three are מעכב, that you must have at least three. And תוספות says that we could say that בית שמאי does not accept this סברא. This whole סברא that כפרה בכדי לא אשכחן, that we don't find a כפרה without anything, so one we know ourselves, this is a סברא of בית הלל, but maybe בית שמאי doesn't hold of that סברא. בית שמאי holds that there could be a כפרה without anything. So if not for the פסוק, we would say that none of them are מעכב. So therefore when the תורה tells us twice the word קרן as an extra word, so we know that two are מעכב. Or תוספות has another תירוץ, that maybe they hold that since you pour the rest of the blood on the יסוד of the מזבח, so then even if there would be no מתנות, no special spraying at the corners, still it wouldn't be considered that there is a כפרה without anything, because that pouring by the יסוד is something. So therefore, if not for the extra פסוק, we would say that we don't need any מתנות, the שפיכה, the pouring by the יסוד is enough. Now when the תורה tells us something concerning two, so we say the תורה tells us that בדיעבד you must have these two. Then the גמרא continues,

ר' שמעון, where do we see that ר' שמעון is also of the opinion that יש אם למקרא? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, this is concerning the מצוה of סוכה, that how many walls must a סוכה have in order to be a כשר סוכה? So one thing we do know, that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני, that whatever it seems from the תורה we must have, the הלכה למשה מסיני takes off one. Because we know that concerning מחיצות, concerning walls, we have דינים that הלכה למשה מסיני told us that even though we don't find it in the תורה, orally משה רבינו gave it over that he heard from השם that the דין is so and so. And one of the דינים concerning מחיצות that we have הלכה למשה מסיני is that the last wall doesn't have to be a complete wall, but if it's a טפח it is considered already a wall. In the ברייתא that שתים כהלכתן, you must have two complete walls, ושלישית אפילו טפח, the third wall could be even as narrow as one טפח, as long as it's ten טפחים high, so that has a דין of a wall, and then it is a כשר סוכה. But ר' שמעון אומר, ר' שמעון says, שלש כהלכתן, you must have three complete walls, ורביעית אפילו טפח, the fourth wall could be even narrow a טפח, as long as it's ten טפחים high. So you must have really four walls, but just the fourth one doesn't have to be a complete wall. That is the opinion of ר' שמעון. And the גמרא says, מאי קא מיפלגי? What is the reason for the מחלוקת? רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold יש אם למסורת, that we דרשנ'ן the words in the תורה the way it is written, the way it was handed down from משה רבינו to write the word. But ר' שמעון סבר, ר' שמעון holds, יש אם למקרא, the main way to דרשנ'ן the words is the way the word is read. And the גמרא explains: רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold יש אם למסורת, that the main way to דרשנ'ן the word is the way it is written, So therefore, in the תורה it is written three times the word בסוכות, but once it's written בסוכת without a ו, even though we read it בסוכות, in סוכות which is plural, but it is written בסוכת without a ו, which is singular. Then there's another time where it says the same word, where we read בסוכות, but it's written בסוכת without a ו, which is again singular. Then there's a third time where it is written בסוכות with a ו, which is plural. הרי כאן ארבע, so together we have four. One בסוכת is one, the other בסוכת is two, and then the other בסוכות is another two, together it's four. So that tells us that we have to have four walls. דל חד קרא לגופיה, take away one פסוק for itself. One פסוק, one of those three times it says בסוכות, you cannot דרש'ן, because the תורה has to write it for itself to know that we have to have a סוכה. So one of those goes off. So from the four, we're left פשו להו תלת, so we're left with three. The תורה tells us we must have three walls. אתיא הלכתא, comes the הלכה למשה מסיני, גרעתה לשלישית, it minimizes, it makes the third one smaller, ואוקימתה אטפח, and it puts it on a טפח, and a טפח is enough. The הלכה למשה מסיני says the last one could be only a טפח. So since לכתחילה from the תורה we only know that we have to have three, and the הלכה למשה מסיני says that the last one could be a טפח, so from here we know that you must have two כהלכתן, two complete walls, and one of a טפח is enough, the third one to be a טפח. That's the opinion of the רבנן. רבי שמעון סבר, but רבי שמעון holds that יש אם למקרא, we said before, that בסוכות,

בסוכות, בסוכות, since we read each word בסוכות, so even though it's written without a ו, two of these בסוכות are written without a ו, but since we read it with a ו, so we דרש'ן it that way, so we דרש'ן each one of these plural. Since it says three times, הרי כאן שש, so we have six. דל חד קרא לגופיה, take off one of these three words for itself, since the תורה has to write the word בסוכות to tell us that you have to have a סוכה. So one of these three times בסוכות is taken off, פשו להו ארבע, so we're left with four. Since one בסוכות is off, so we're left with two בסוכות, each time it's plural, so we're left with four. So the תורה is telling us you must have four walls. אתיא הלכתא, comes the הלכה למשה מסיני, גרעתה לרביעית, it minimizes, makes the fourth one smaller, ואוקמה אטפח, and says a טפח is enough. Therefore, רבי שמעון holds that you must have three complete walls and a fourth one a טפח. So here too, we see that רבי שמעון holds יש אם למקרא.

ורבי עקיבא, where do we see that רבי עקיבא holds יש אם למקרא? דתניא, because we learned, רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, מניין, how do we know, לרביעית דם שיצאת משני מתים שמטמא באהל, that came out of two מתים, two dead people, that it also is מטמא באהל? The דין is that a dead body is מטמא באהל. If a person stands under one roof with a dead body, then he becomes טמא. The דין is not only if he stands under one roof with the whole body, but even if part of the body, even if he stands under one roof with a רביעית of blood that came out of a dead body. But רבי עקיבא is saying, how do we know that if you have one רביעית, but it came from two dead people, part of this רביעית came from one person and the other part came from another person, how do we know that you combine the two, and if you stand under one roof with this רביעית of blood, you become טמא באהל? So he says, you have, because the פסוק says, על כל נפשת מת לא יבא, that you should not come on all נפשות, on all souls of a dead person. So here the תורה says נפשת לשון רבים, so we דרש'ן שתי נפשות בשיעור אחד, that even if you have two נפשות, it came from two people, and it has one שיעור, still you are טמא. But the רבנן, the רבנן say נפשת כתיב, that even though we read it נפשת with a ו, which is plural, but it's written without a ו, it's written נפשת, which is singular, not plural. So therefore, the רבנן hold that you do not become טמא unless this רביעית of blood came from one person. So here too we see that the רבנן, they דרש'ן the word the way it's written, the way the מסורת tells us to write it, but רבי עקיבא, he דרש'נס the word the way we read it, and that's why he דרש'נס נפשת לשון רבים, so we see that רבי עקיבא holds יש אם למקרא. Then the

גמרא asks a קשיא, מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב, so רב אחא בר יעקב asks a קשיא, מי איכא דלית ליה יש אם למקרא, is there such a thing that there should be a מאן דאמר that should not hold יש אם למקרא? And here it seems that these are the מאן דאמר that hold יש אם למקרא, but others hold יש אם למסורת. And as we טאקע brought before, that in certain things there is a מחלוקת, that means that the other מאן דאמר that argues holds יש אם למסורת, not יש אם למקרא. So רב אחא בר יעקב asks, can there be such a thing that not everybody should accept the מקרא? ותניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, it says בחלב אמו. Concerning the איסור of בשר בחלב, that you're not allowed to cook or eat milk and meat together, it is learned out from the פסוק where it says, לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, you should not cook a goat in the milk of its mother. Now this word בחלב could be read in two ways: You could read it בחלב, which means milk, you could read it בחלב, which would mean fat. And this is what the ברייתא says: It says in the תורה, בחלב אמו, יכול, I would think בחלב, I would think that the איסור of the תורה to cook a goat is in בחלב, the fat of its mother. אמרת, so you say, יש אם למקרא, that we דרשן the way it's read. And since we read it בחלב אמו, even though the way it's written it could mean חלב, but since we read it בחלב, in the milk, that's why we say that you're not allowed to cook meat in milk. And this is a דין that everyone agrees to. Everyone holds of the איסור of בשר בחלב. So obviously, everyone holds that we דרשן it the way it is read, not the way it's written. So how can we say before that not everybody holds יש אם למקרא? אלא, therefore the גמרא says, no, דכולי עלמא באמת we must say everyone holds that יש אם למקרא, that we דרשן the way it's written. But if so, those places we brought before where we find a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא, יש אם למסורת, how will that fit? It'll come out that some hold יש אם למסורת, but now we're saying that everyone holds יש אם למקרא. So the גמרא is going to explain that all these מחלוקות that we brought before really is not a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורת, but the מחלוקת is based on something else. And the גמרא explains it: רבי ורבנן בהא קמיפלגי. רבי and the רבנן argue in this:

One of the places, the first place that we said that there is a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא, יש אם למסורת was רבי and the רבנן. That רבי said that how do we know that the בית דין of דיני ממונות must be made of five? Because it says, אשר ירשיעון אלהים, that the בית דין, the אלהים will be מרשיע, and ירשיעון with a ו is plural, that means two. And then there's another time אלהים, which also means two, together it's four, and since a בית דין cannot be even, we must have one more, which is five. So he דרשנ'ד ירשיעון with a ו, since we read it ירשיעון, so that's how he דרשנ'ד. The רבנן hold that it is enough to have three by דיני ממונות, so the גמרא said the reason was because they say we don't דרשן ירשיעון, but we דרשן ירשיען, since it is written without a ו, which is not plural, so that doesn't show that אלהים there means two. So it came out that the מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן was that רבי holds יש אם למקרא, we דרשן the word the way it's read, and the רבנן hold יש אם למסורת, that we דרשן the word the way it's written. But now that we said that everyone agrees יש אם למקרא, that we דרשן the word the way it's read, so what is the מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן? So the גמרא says they argue in something else. רבי סבר, רבי holds ירשיעון אלהים אחרינא. It means another one. Since before that it already said he should go to אלהים, and now the תורה says אשר ירשיעון אלהים, it means another אלהים. So that's already two. Now since this one means two, so the other one also means two. So we have four, and then we have one more because you can't have an even בית דין. So it's not that he דרשנ'ס that it's two from the word ירשיעון because it says with a ו, that's why he דרשנ'ס it, but he דרשנ'ס it because since it's the second time it says אלהים, so it means another אלהים, that's two. ורבנן סברי, the רבנן hold ירשיעון להך דהאי, that it means that the same one that's mentioned before, he should be מרשיע. So it comes out it's one. So the מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן is not whether we follow the writing or we follow the way we read it, but the מחלוקת is in something else, whether we say that אלהים here means another one after the one we mentioned before and therefore it's two, or it means the same one. ורבי יהודה בן רועץ, the other one we brought who holds that יש אם למקרא was רבי יהודה בן רועץ, so there there is no problem because מסורת. So we must say now that the מחלוקת between בית שמאי and בית הלל is not whether יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורת, but it is based on something else.

דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא: וכיפר וכיפר וכיפר, three times it says in the תורה concerning a חטאת the word וכיפר. By a שעיר of a נשיא it says וכיפר, By the שעירה of an individual who brings a חטאת it says וכיפר, and by the כבשה of an individual it also says וכיפר. Now since it says וכיפר לשון יחיד in singular, that means that with one thing you get a כפרה. So therefore from here we know that you get a כפרה with one מתנה. So this is the opinion of בית הלל, not that they hold יש אם למסורת, and that's why they say it's enough to have a כפרה through one מתנה, as we explained before, but we learn it out from this פסוק וכיפר. Since the תורה says וכיפר, which is singular, so we know that even by a חטאת, one כפרה is enough. And the ברייתא explains why we have to have this פסוק: מפני הדין, because of a לימוד. The reason this פסוק has to tell us that with one is enough, because otherwise we would have had a לימוד to show that one is not enough, so the פסוק has to tell us that one is enough. Now

what would be the דין? והלא דין הוא, there would be a לימוד to say that you would have to have more than one. Why? Because נאמר דמים למטה, it says the דין that you must spritz blood למטה, and it says נאמר דמים למעלה. And it says that you must spray blood למעלה. למטה means under, lower, and למעלה means above. Now in רש"י we have mainly two פירושים what this גמרא means. One פשט is that למטה means lower, further on in the תורה, and this is concerning חטאת העוף, there is a חטאת of a bird. So there the תורה says, והזה מדם החטאת על קיר המזבח. Then, when it says דמים למעלה, that means earlier in the תורה, higher up, it also mentions that you have to spray the blood, and that is by a חטאת בהמה. So we דרשן that מה דמים האמורים למטה, just like the דין concerning the spraying of the blood that says lower, which is concerning the חטאת of an עוף, so there the דין is שנתנם במתנה אחת כיפר, if you gave it with one מתנה, if you sprayed once, it is good, אף דמים האמורים למעלה, so too concerning the blood that's mentioned earlier in the תורה concerning a חטאת בהמה, the דין is also שנתנם במתנה אחת כיפר, if you gave one מתנה, which means you sprayed once, it is also a כפרה. How do we know that by a חטאת העוף it is enough? Because there the תורה does not say קרנות. So there we know that with one spraying it's enough. So we learn out that just like over there with one spraying it's enough, so too by a חטאת בהמה it's enough with one spraying. Another פשט רש"י says that when we say למטה and למעלה it doesn't mean lower, further in the תורה or higher, earlier in the תורה, but it refers to two kinds of spraying of the blood. On the מזבח, right in the middle of the מזבח, there was a painted line which was called the חוט הסיקרא. Now, certain קרבנות, like an עולה or a שלמים or an אשם, when you sprayed the blood, you had to do it under the חוט הסיקרא. Now, certain קרבנות, like a חטאת, you would have to spray over, למעלה, over the חוט הסיקרא. And this is what the גמרא means here, that just like concerning those קרבנות that you have to spray למטה under the חוט הסיקרא it would be enough if you spray once, as we said before that there everyone agrees that one is enough, even בית שמאי says that one is enough because the תורה says, ודם זבחיך ישפך, and that means one spray. So we learn out that just like concerning those קרבנות, concerning an עולה and a שלמים and an אשם, one is enough, so too the קרבנות that have to be sprayed on top of the חוט הסיקרא, which is the חטאת, also one is enough. Or another פשט רש"י says that we טאקע mean over there למטה concerning a קרבן אשם, but why is it called למטה? Not because it's under the חוט הסיקרא, but it's called למטה because it's later on in the פרשה. But רש"י says that the main פשט is the middle פשט, that we're referring to those blood that are sprayed under the חוט הסיקרא, and למעלה means those blood that are sprayed over the חוט הסיקרא. But whichever פשט we're going to learn, so the גמרא is saying here that on one hand we could learn out that one spraying is enough בדיעבד because we're going to compare it to the other קרבנות, to an עולה, שלמים, or an אשם. או כלך לדרך זו, or maybe we should go to a different direction, maybe we should learn differently, learn out from something else, and then we will say that with once it's not enough. Maybe we could compare it to something else. We could say נאמר דמים בחוץ, it says that you have to spray the blood concerning those קרבנות that you spray the blood on the outside מזבח, ונאמר דמים בפנים, but it also says in the תורה concerning those קרבנות that you have to spray the blood inside, that's concerning a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, etc. So we say מה דמים האמורים בפנים, just like concerning the blood that has to be sprayed inside, the דין is that חיסר אחת אחת מן המתנות, if you missed out even one of the times that you have to spray, לא עשה ולא כלום, you didn't do anything, the קרבן is פסול, אף דמים האמורים בחוץ, so too the דין should be concerning those קרבנות that you have to spray the blood outside, which is a regular חטאת, the דין should be, חיסר אחת מן המתנות לא עשה כלום, that if you missed out one of the sprayings, you didn't do anything, the קרבן is פסול. So, on one hand, we could compare a חטאת to an אשם, an עולה, or a שלמים, and say that, just like over there, one is enough, a חטאת too. Or we could compare it to the חטאות that you have to spray inside, and we would say, just like over there you must have all, so too here you must have all. Or according to the other פשט in רש״י, that we compare it to a חטאת העוף, where one is enough, or do we compare it to those חטאות that you have to spray inside and one is not enough? So, נחזי למי דמיא, let's see to which one of the two is it similar. And we say like this: דנין חוץ מחוץ. We compare, we judge a קרבן that is sprayed on the outside from a קרבן that is sprayed on the outside. And therefore, we would compare the חטאת, or to the חטאת העוף, or to the עולה, שלמים, and אשם, but אין דנין חוץ מפנים. But we will not compare, not judge, not learn out a קרבן that is sprayed on the outside from a קרבן that is sprayed in the inside. And therefore, there is more reason to learn out that the דין should be בדיעבד that it's enough if you sprayed one. או כלך לדרך זו, or maybe we shouldn't go that way, we should go to a different direction, and we should say like this: דנין חטאת וארבע קרנות מחטאת וארבע קרנות. We should rather learn out the חטאת from the outside from the חטאת of the פנים rather than learning out from the other things. And the reason is, because this is a חטאת and that is a חטאת. The only thing is, this is חוץ and this is פנים. But since they are both חטאות, so it makes sense to learn out one חטאת from the other. Plus, in both places, the תורה says קרנות. ואל יוכיח זה, and we should not prove it from this, שאין חטאת וארבע קרנות. We should not compare it to an אשם or an עולה or a שלמים, because it's not a חטאת, and it doesn't say there ד' קרנות. Therefore, there is more reason to compare it to the חטאת that you're supposed to spray the blood inside, because that is a חטאת too, and there it says ד' קרנות. Also according to the other פשט of רש״י, that we don't compare it to an עולה, שלמים, or אשם, but we compare it to חטאת העוף, still, even though they're both חטאות, but there it doesn't say קרנות, and here it does say קרנות. So, it makes more sense to compare the חטאת of a בהמה to the חטאת that is sprayed inside, because in both cases it says the ד' קרנות, while concerning the חטאת העוף, it doesn't say ד' קרנות. So, it would come out that after this whole discussion, the better לימוד would be that the דין should be learned out from the חטאת הפנים, and therefore, the דין would be that even by a regular חטאת, if you missed out one of the מתנות, it's פסול. That's why תלמוד לומר the תורה has to tell us, ״וכיפר״ ״וכיפר״ ״וכיפר״ by all three חטאות. It has to say וכיפר לשון יחיד מפני הדין, because of this לימוד. And it has to tell us כיפר אף על פי שלא נתן אלא שלשה. The first כיפר tells us that you don't have to have all four. Even if you only did three was enough. Then, a second כיפר tells us אף על פי שלא נתן אלא שתים, even if you only did two. And the third כיפר tells us אף על פי שלא נתן אלא אחת, even if you only made one. So, from here we know that even if you gave one מתנה by a חטאת, it is enough. So, here we see that the reason why בית שמאי and בית הלל argue whether by a חטאת, one מתנה is enough, is not based on a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורת, because everyone, as we're saying now, holds יש אם למקרא. The reason why בית הלל holds that one is enough, because of this דרש from the word וכיפר. Then, ורבי שמעון ורבנן בהא פליגי. The other מחלוקת we had before concerning whether יש אם למקרא, יש אם למסורת, was between רבי שמעון and the רבנן, whether by a סוכה you must have two walls and the third one a טפח, or three walls and the fourth one a טפח. And we said before the מחלוקת was based on whether יש אם למקרא, יש אם למסורת. But now we're saying בהא פליגי, they're arguing in this. רבי שמעון סבר, רבי שמעון holds סכך לא בעי קרא, that the סכך itself doesn't need a פסוק, ורבנן סברי, the רבנן hold סכך בעי קרא, that the סכך itself also needs a פסוק. Everyone agrees יש אם למקרא, that we דרש the פסוק the way it is read. And therefore, we have three times in the תורה ״בסוכות״, ״בסוכות״, ״בסוכות״, and we read it plural, so the תורה tells us six. Then, we said before, one goes off for the פסוק itself, to tell us the עצם דין, so we're left with two, which is four. But the question is, do we also need a לימוד for the סכך? Do we have to have a word בסוכות to tell us that we have to have the סכך? So רב שמעון holds that for the סכך we don't need a פסוק, because since the תורה tells us we have to have a סוכה, we use one of the three words בסוכות to tell us the עצם דין of סוכה, so that includes the סכך, because otherwise it's not a סוכה. So therefore, the same one word בסוכות teaches us the סכך, too, the סוכה and the סכך. So then the other two words come to teach us the walls. So since each one is plural, so we're left with four walls. And הלכה למשה מסיני makes the last wall smaller, so therefore he says we have three complete walls and one wall a טפח. But the רבנן say that the סכך also needs a פסוק, so then one of the times that we have goes off for the סכך, so we're left with three. Now, the הלכה למשה מסיני tells us that the last one is only a טפח, that comes that the last one of the three is a טפח. Therefore they hold that you have to have two and the third one a טפח. ורבי עקיבא ורבנן the other מחלוקת, whether יש אם למקרא יש אם למסורת, was between רבי עקיבא and the רבנן. But now that we say that everyone holds יש אם למקרא, what is their מחלוקת? בהא פליגי, this is what they argue: רבי עקיבא סבר, נפשת תרתי משמע. That when the תורה says, על כל נפשת מת לא יבא, so we say that the word נפשת means two נפשות. Since it's plural, it's read plural, and יש אם למקרא, so we say it means two נפשות, and from here we know that even if it's one רביעית דם that comes from two people, it is מטמא באהל. But רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold, נפשת דעלמא משמע. That when we read the word נפשת in plural, it doesn't mean plural two people, it means נפשות of the world, that from all kinds of people, from any person in the world, the נפש is מטמא. So therefore we don't have a ראיה that even if it's דם from two people it is מטמא, because the תורה is not telling us specifically concerning more than one person, the תורה is speaking about people of the world. So אין הכי נמי they טאקע דרשן the word the way it's read, and it's read נפשת, but they say it doesn't mean נפשת in the specific case of two people, but it means נפשות of all people. But still, when is it מטמא? Only if this רביעית דם comes from one person. Then the גמרא asks, וכולי עלמא יש אם למקרא? Are you really telling me that everyone holds that we דרשן the word the way we read it? But we find not so. והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, and this is concerning the מצוה of תפילין, that how do we know that you have to have four בתים, four little compartments in the תפילין של ראש? So the גמרא says like this, we learn in a ברייתא that there are three times in the תורה where it says והיו לטטפת בין עיניך or בין עיניכם, so it says the word טוטפת. But once it says לטטפת without a ו, another time it says לטטפת without a ו, and then once it says לטוטפת with a ו. So when it says לטוטפת with a ו, that's plural, that's two. When it says לטוטפת without a ו, which means לטטפת, that's singular. So since we have once plural and twice singular, so together הרי כאן ארבע, so we have

four. דברי רבי ישמעאל, that's the opinion of רבי ישמעאל. That's what he says, how we know that you have to have four בתים in your תפילין של ראש. רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, אינו צריך, you don't have to come onto that. How do we know that you have to have four בתים? Because טט בכספי שתים, the word טט in the language of the country כספי means two, פת באפריקי שתים, the word פת in the language of אפריקי is also two. So since the תורה says טוטפת, it's made up of two words, טט פת, that means four. So we see here that רבי ישמעאל does דרשן the פסוק the way it is written, because he דרשנ'ס טטפת, טטפת, טוטפת, it's all based on the fact that it's written without a ו. So we see that he holds יש אם למסורת, and before we said that everyone agrees יש אם למקרא. אלא, so therefore the גמרא says, לעולם באמת פליגי. There is a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא, יש אם למסורת. איי, we said before that if there are some that hold that we do not say יש אם למקרא, what do they do with בשר בחלב? How do we know that the תורה means you can't cook or eat meat in milk? Because we read the word בחלב אמו, but maybe the word means חלב, fat? And everyone agrees that there is an איסור of בשר בחלב, so obviously everyone agrees that we follow the way we read it, בחלב אמו. So we said before that everyone holds יש אם למקרא, but now we're saying that there is a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורת. So he says that באמת there is a מחלוקת, but הני מילי כי פליגי היכא דשני קרא ממסורת. When is this said, when do they argue? Only if the תורה changes from the מסורת, that we read it different than it's written. In other words, if we would want to read it the way it's written, we wouldn't read it, we couldn't read it the way we do. אבל האי חלב וחלב דכי הדדי נינהו, but this difference between חלב and חלב are both the same. So here יש אם למקרא, here we read, we follow the way it is read, because we don't say that it is written different than it's read. It could be read different, but even if we're going to read it the way we do, the תורה would have written it the same way, because to read it חלב or חלב, it's ח' ל' ב'. The only thing is that ח' ל' ב' could also be read as חלב. But in a case like that, since the way it is read is exactly the way it's written, there everyone agrees that we follow the way it's written. But in a case where the מסורת is different than the way it's read, it's written different than the way it's read, so then there is a מחלוקת whether יש אם למקרא or יש אם למסורת. But then the גמרא asks that is it not so true either, והרי יראה יראה דכי הדדי נינהו, the word יראה or the word יראה is the same. י' ר' א' ה', you could read it יראה, he will see, or you could read it יראה, he will be seen, and both are the same letters, י' ר' א' ה'. And nevertheless, ופליגי, there is a מחלוקת. We find a מאן דאמר that דרש'נס even in a case like that the מסורת. Where is that?

דתניא, we learned, יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר משום רבי יהודה בן תימא, רבי יוחנן בן דהבאי said in the name of רבי יהודה בן תימא: הסומא באחת מעיניו, if a person is blind in one eye, פטור מן הראיה, he's פטור, he's exempt from the מצוה of ראיה, from the מצוה of going up עליה לרגל, on יום טוב, פסח, שבועות, and סוכות, to go up to ירושלים to the בית המקדש, to see השם. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, יראה יראה. This is a פסוק where it says, שלש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך לפני האדון השם, that three times a year every male should be seen in front of השם. Now this word יראה is written י' ר' א' ה', and we read it יראה, and nevertheless, he דרש'נס it also as if it would be written יראה. And he says that what we have to do is we have to use both expressions. We have to use the word יראה and יראה, and compare the two. And he דרש'נס as follows: כדרך שבא לראות כך בא ליראות, just like he comes to see, so too he comes to be seen. And he says, מה לראות בשתי עיניו, just like he sees with two eyes, אף ליראות בשתי עיניו, also to be seen with two eyes. And as רש''י explains, the פשט is like this: he דרש'נס both פסוקים, and he says like this: יראה means he will see, the person will see השם. יראה means that he will be seen, which means השם will see him. And we compare the two, and we say, just like when השם sees him, He sees him with both eyes, because there's a פסוק that says, עיני השם אלקיך בה מראשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה, the eyes, plural, of השם are there from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, so we see that השם looks with both eyes, so too, when you come to see Him, you're only obligated to do it if you're able to see Him with two eyes. Therefore he holds that if you're only able to see with one eye, then you are פטור from עליה לרגל. So here we see that even though the תורה says יראה, nevertheless, he דרש'נס יראה also, because the מסורת, the way it's written, could be read יראה even though we have to read it יראה. And the same thing is with חלב. We said before that the reason why we say it means חלב, because in a case where the way you read it fits to the way it's written, we only דרש'ן the מקרא. But over there we see that even though we read it יראה, and it's written י' ר' א' ה' that fits to the word יראה, nevertheless he דרש'נס the מסורת also, he דרש'נס the word the way it could be read if not for the way we really read it. So we see that even there, there is a סברא to say that יש אם למסורת. The גמרא answers, אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, so therefore רב אחא בריה דרב איקא said that it's true, that even in a case like that, there could be a מחלוקת, and there could be a מאן דאמר to say יש אם למסורת. But if so, we're back to the קשיא, how does everyone know that you're not allowed to eat or cook בשר בחלב, meat and milk? If you hold יש אם למסורת, maybe it doesn't mean cooking meat in milk, maybe it means in fat, in חלב? So he says, because אמר קרא, the פסוק says, לא תבשל גדי, do not cook the goat בחלב אמו. So it דרך בישול אסרה תורה, the תורה אסר'ד in a way of cooking. But if it would mean that you can't do it in fat, that wouldn't be cooking, but it would be roasting. And therefore we know that definitely the תורה means that you're not allowed to cook it in milk. Concerning the לימוד that the גמרא brought before, that we דרש'נד the word יראה and יראה, and we say כדרך שבא לראות כך בא לראות, מה לראות בשתי עיניו אף לראות בשתי עיניו. So

תוספות says that if we're going to learn the way רש״י learned, it'll come out that the word יראה and the word יראה apply to two separate ones. The word יראה would apply to השם, and the word יראה would apply to the people. And the לשון is not משמע like that. The לשון is משמע that they both go on the person who is עולה לרגל. Therefore, the רבינו תם learns a different פשט, just the opposite. He says like this: that just like זכורך, the people, come to see פני השכינה, so when you come to see the שכינה, at that moment השם looks at you with both of his eyes, so too, when you look back at him, you're supposed to be looking with both eyes. So it comes out that the word יראה and יראה both go on the person. That the person comes to see him, two things happen at that time: השם sees him then with two of his eyes, so too, when you see השם, it's only if you're able to see with both of eyes, your eyes. And תוספות says that according to this, another thing is understood, because the לשון בא on the שכינה. It says you come to see. Now, how can you say the לשון בא on the שכינה? The שכינה come, the שכינה is always in the בית המקדש. But according to this, both times where it says בא, where it says it coming, doesn't refer to the שכינה, but it refers to the person.

Another קושיא תוספות asks is concerning the opinion of רבי עקיבא concerning the תפילין. רבי עקיבא said that how do we know you have to have four בתים in the תפילין של ראש? Because the word טוטפות itself means four. טט in the language of כתפי means two, פת in the language of אפריקי means two, together it's four. But תוספות asks: If so, there should be more than four. Since the תורה says three times the word לטוטפות, so from one of the words לטוטפות we learn out four. Now when it says three times the word לטוטפות, so we should learn out that we have to have much more than four בתים in the תפילין. So therefore תוספות answers that we must say that since we find in one word the amount of how many בתים we must have, so then we cannot learn anymore from the other פסוקים. When do we say that when there are a few times mentioned in the תורה, each time comes to add? That's if the word itself doesn't tell us how much. So we say, from the amount of times mentioned in the תורה, we learn out this amount that we have to have. But here, since in the word itself the תורה tells us the amount, so here we cannot say already that the other words come to add. Or another תירוץ תוספות gives: since we don't find in the תורה more than four פרשיות where תפילין is mentioned, it doesn't make any sense to say that we should have to have more than four פרשיות in the תפילין. And therefore, since we find four in the word טוטפות, and that is the maximum possible, so we say that's how much we're supposed to have. And another תירוץ תוספות gives, that according to רבי עקיבא we say like this: one of the times where it says טוטפות we have to have for itself, just for the דין that you have to have טוטפות. Now, from the other two times where it says טוטפות, we only know four, because he wants to learn out that according to each language we have four. So since טט in כתפי is two, so from the two times טט that we have in the two times טוטפות, we know four. The first time טוטפות is used for itself. Now, from the other two, we have twice טט, that means four. We also have twice פת, that's again four. So we don't say that it means eight; what we say it means is that according to each language we have four. So we don't learn it out from a combination of two languages, but we learn it out from each language in itself. So therefore we know it's four, because in אפריקי it's four, because twice the word פת, and in כתפי it's four, because of twice the word טט.

Concerning the end of the גמרא where it said that דרך בישול אסרה תורה, that how do we know that it means חלב, not חלב? Because the תורה says לא תבשל, and דרך בישול אסרה תורה. So we said before the פשט was that if it would be in חלב it wouldn't be considered בישול, it wouldn't be called cooking, it would be called roasting. תוספות mentions that there's another פשט: that דרך בישול אסרה תורה means that the תורה אסר only through cooking, which means that if you wouldn't have cooked it in the חלב or whatever it should mean, it would be מותר. Now, if it would mean חלב, it still would be אסור, because חלב is אסור. We know that חלב of a בהמה is אסור. So since the תורה says that it's only אסור if you cook the גדי in this, otherwise it would be מותר, so we know for sure it can't mean חלב, because חלב would be אסור even if you don't cook the גדי in it. So therefore we must say, so what does it mean? It means חלב, because if you wouldn't cook the גדי in the חלב it would be מותר, because you're allowed to drink milk, you're allowed to eat the גדי separately, but if you put them together it's אסור. So that's how we know it means חלב. But

רבי עקיבא איגר in the גליון הש״ס asks a קושיא, that who says that it means in the חלב which is אסור? We find certain fats in the בהמה which is אסור, and certain fats of the בהמה which is מותר. So even though generally the אסור, the טריפה, the non-kosher fat is called חלב, and the כשר fat is called שומן, but nevertheless, the fat which is כשר could also be called חלב. So maybe when the תורה says לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, maybe it טאקע means חלב, and it means the כשר חלב? So what kind of a ראיה do we have, since דרך בישול אסרה תורה, that if you wouldn't put the גדי in it, it would be מותר? So that shows it couldn't be חלב, because חלב would be אסור even without the גדי. Who says? Maybe we're talking about the כשר חלב, so then it would be מותר if you wouldn't put the גדי in, and what the תורה is telling us that if you put the גדי in, then it is אסור? So how can the גמרא know, according to this פשט of תוספות, that it means חלב, because if it would mean חלב, it would have been אסור anyway? How do we know, maybe we're talking about כשר חלב?