— There, subtract one text for the command itself, and one for the covering, so three are left. Then the [Mosaic] halachah comes and diminishes the third [wall], fixing it at a hand-breadth. If so, [when Scripture states] Then she shall be unclean two weeks [shebu'ayim], shib'im [seventy] [is actually written], then [argue,] the mikra and the masoreth are both effective, and so she should have to spend forty-two days [in uncleanness]? — There it is different, because it is written, as in her menstrual state. Now the Tanna [of the following Baraitha] adduces it [Beth Hillel's ruling] as follows: We-kipper [and he shall make atonement] is stated three times, on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn]. But surely we have an analogy to this effect: blood is prescribed below [the red line], and blood is prescribed above: as with the blood which is prescribed below, if one made a single application, he effects atonement; so with the blood which is prescribed above, if one makes a single application, he makes atonement. Or you may reason in this direction: Blood is prescribed within, and blood is prescribed without: as in the case of blood prescribed within, if [the priest] omits a single application his action is ineffective; so in the case of the blood prescribed without, if he omits a single application his action is null. Then let us see to which it is comparable: You can draw an analogy between sacrifices offered on the outer altar, but you cannot draw an analogy between [sacrifices offered on] the outer altar and [those offered on] the inner altar. Or, you might argue to the contrary: You may draw an analogy between sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled on four horns [of the altar], and let not the outer altar prove it, which is not a sin-offering nor [is its blood sprinkled on the] four horns. Therefore Scripture states ‘we-kipper’ three times, on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn], [teaching]: ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled [the blood] only three times; ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled [it] only twice; ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled it but once. But this is required for its own purpose? Said Raba b. Adda: Mari explained it to me: Scripture says, and he shall make atonement . . . and he shall be forgiven: atonement and forgiveness are identical. Yet say [that] ‘and he shall make atonement’ [intimates] even if he made only three applications above [the red line] and one below; and he shall make atonement’ even if he made only two applications above and two below; ‘and he shall make atonement even if he did not apply [the blood] above but only below? — Said R. Adda b. Isaac: If so, you annul the law of horns. But if the Divine Law has ordained [it so], let them be annulled? — Said Raba: What thing is it that requires three? Surely the horns. Yet say, ‘and he shall make atonement’ [teaches] even if he made only one application above and three below? — We do not find blood [applied] half above and half below. Do we not? Surely we learnt: He sprinkled thereof once above and seven below? — That was done as mazlif [one swinging a whip]. What is a mazlif? — Rab Judah showed it by imitating the movements of a whipper. [Again, we learnt:] He besprinkled the surface of the altar seven times.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜ