Sanhedrin

As to R. Judah b. Ro'ez, the Rabbis do not oppose him. As for the Hillelites, they derive their ruling  from the following: For it has been taught: wekipper  has to be repeated three times [in connection with the sin offering]  to indicate that even one application is adequate, contrary to an analogy which might otherwise be advanced in favour of the need of four applications. But could we not have deduced this by [the following] analogy? The use of blood is mentioned [for application] above the line;  and the use of blood is mentioned [for application] below the line.  Just as in the case of the blood to be applied below the line, one application effects atonement,  so should it be with the blood to be applied above the line. But you may argue this way: Sprinkling is prescribed for sacrifices offered on the outer altar  and also for those offered on the inner altar.  As in the case of those offered on the inner altar, expiation is not effected if one application has been omitted, so should it be with sacrifices offered on the outer altar! Let us, however, see to which it is to be compared. Comparisons may be made between sacrifices offered on [the same] the outer altar, but not between sacrifices offered on the outer and inner altars. But may you not, on the other hand, argue in this way? We can compare sin offerings, the blood of which is applied on the four horns of the altar,  to other sin offerings, the blood of which is applied on the four horns,  but no proof can be deduced from such a sacrifice as is neither a sin offering nor has the blood sprinkled on the four horns of the altar!  Hence on account of this latter analogy, Wekipper has to be repeated three times, to indicate that atonement is effected by means of three sprinklings, or even by means of two, or indeed even by means of one alone. Now as to R. Simeon and the Rabbis, their real point of difference is the following: R. Simeon holds that a cover for a Sukkah needs no textual basis,  while the Rabbis maintain that a special textual basis is necessary for a cover. R. Akiba and the Rabbis again disagree on the following point: According to the former, nafshoth denotes two bodies,  while the Rabbis say that nafshoth is a general term for bodies. But do all, indeed, regard the Mikra as determinant? Has it not been taught: 'letotafoth [frontlets] occurs thrice in the Torah, twice defective and once plene,  four in all, to indicate [that four sections are to be inserted in the phylacteries]. Such is the opinion of R. Ishmael. But R. Akiba maintains that there is no need of that interpretation, for the word totafoth itself implies four, [it being composed of] tot which means two in Katpi  and foth which means two in Afriki?  — Hence, in reality, it is disputable whether Mikra is always determinant in Biblical exegesis, but this is true only of cases where Mikra and Masorah differ in the spelling of a word.  But where-as for example, in the case of the milk — the reading behaleb involves no change in the spelling,  Mikra is determinant. But does not the text, Three times in the year all thy males shall appear [shall be seen] before the Lord, occasion a dispute whether we shall follow the Mikra [yera'eh]29 or read yir'eh  according to Masorah?  For it has been taught: R. Johanan b. Dahabai said on behalf of R. Judah b. Tema: One who is blind in one eye is exempted from visiting the Temple, for we read YR'H  which according to Mikra means he shall be seen and according to Masorah, he shall see. That is to say, as He comes to see the worshipper, so should man come to be seen by Him; as He [the Lord] comes to see [so to speak] with both eyes.  so should he, who comes to be seen by Him, come with both eyes!  Hence, says R. Aha, the son of R. Ika: The scriptural text says. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. It is seething, as a method of cooking, that the law forbids. Our Rabbis taught: Monetary cases are decided by three;