The Gemara answers: There, one of the five indicated by the verse is needed entirely for the mitzva itself, i.e., to teach the basic halakha that one must dwell in a sukka. And another one of the five is needed to teach that a sukka, as is indicated by its name, must have a covering [sekhakha]. Accordingly, there are three left, alluding to the requirement that a sukka must have three walls. The Gemara adds that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the size of the third wall, teaching that it need not be complete, and sets its minimum length at only one handbreadth.

The Gemara raises yet another objection: If that is so, that both the vocalized and the consonantal texts are taken into account, consider the case of a woman who gives birth to a female child. Concerning this woman the verse states: ''But if she bear a female child, then she shall be impure two weeks [shevu’ayim], as in her menstruation'' (Leviticus 12:5). The way that the word is written allows it to be read as shivim, seventy. Why not say that the vocalized text of the Torah is effective, teaching us that the woman is ritually impure for fourteen days, and the consonantal text is also effective, teaching us that she is impure for seventy days, and, therefore, she should be required to sit in a state of ritual impurity for forty-two days, which is the halfway point between fourteen and seventy days?

The Gemara answers: There it is different, and the consonantal text is disregarded entirely, as it is written: ''As in her menstruation,'' and a menstruating woman is impure for one week. Evidently, the verse is speaking in terms of weeks, and is not alluding to the number seventy at all.

§ The Gemara further analyzes the opinion of Beit Hillel that even in the case of a sin offering, if the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement. And a tanna cites proof for this from here, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering brought by a king: ''And the priest shall make atonement for him'' (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to the goat brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: ''And the priest shall make atonement for him'' (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to the sheep brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: ''And the priest shall make atonement for him'' (Leviticus 4:35). The repetition of this term is due to a logical inference.

As one might have thought to say: Could this not be derived through logical inference as follows: It is stated that blood is placed below the red line, and it is stated that blood is placed above the red line. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed below the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed above the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement.

Or perhaps, go this way, turning away from the previous explanation and toward this explanation: It is stated that blood is presented on the inner altar, i.e., with regard to a sin offering of the community or of the High Priest; the blood of these offerings is sprinkled on the incense altar that is inside the Sanctuary. And it is stated that blood is presented on the external altar, i.e., with regard to the sin offering of an ordinary person, which is offered on the outer altar that is in the courtyard. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the inner altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing, i.e., the offering is not valid, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the external altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing.

The Gemara analyzes the two possibilities: Let us see to which of the two cases the blood of an animal sin offering 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. Or, go this way: We derive a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar from a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar. But a sin offering consisting of a bird, which is not a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar, cannot serve as proof to the halakha concerning an animal sin offering, whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar.

Since both of the above inferences are reasonable, neither can serve as the source of the halakha. Therefore, the verse states: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' for a total of three times. The verses are interpreted as follows: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he placed only three placements. Subsequently: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he placed only two placements, and then: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he placed only one placement. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel’s opinion.

The Gemara challenges: But each of these verses is necessary for itself, to teach that atonement is achieved for each of the sins through its respective sin offering. Rava said: Bar Adda Mari explained this matter to me: The verse states with regard to each of these sin offerings: ''And the priest shall make atonement…and he shall be forgiven'' (Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35). This is atonement and this is forgiveness; they are one and the same. Since it would have sufficed to say: ''And he shall be forgiven,'' the superfluous mentions of the phrase: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.

The Gemara asks: But even if these phrases are superfluous, do they necessarily indicate that a priest who omitted placements has nevertheless facilitated atonement? Why not say that these phrases serve to teach that if the priest placed all the placements he facilitated atonement even if the placements were placed in the wrong place? And expound the verses as follows: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above, on the corners of the altar, and one below, on the lower portion of the altar; ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even if he did not place the blood above at all, but only below.

Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak says: If so, that the priest facilitates atonement even if he placed all the placements below, you have abolished the requirement of four corners that is stated with regard to the sin offering (see, e.g., Leviticus 4:34), as the four corners are on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara is puzzled by Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But if the Merciful One states that this is so, let this requirement be abolished.

As Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim was rejected, Rava said there is a different reason why the previous claim cannot be accepted: What is the item that requires three repetitions of ''and the priest shall make atonement,'' i.e., to what are these verses referring? You must say that these are the corners of the altar. The Torah must teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he did not place the blood on three of the four corners. But in order for the verses to teach that all four placements can be placed below, the phrase ''and the priest shall make atonement'' would have to be written four times.

The Gemara asks further: Even so, it is possible to interpret the three repetitions of the phrase ''and the priest shall make atonement'' as referring to the location of the placements, without abolishing the requirement of corners, as one can say: ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even though he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above and one below; ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even though he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; ''And the priest shall make atonement,'' even though he placed the blood with only one placement above and three below.

The Gemara answers: This entire line of inquiry can be rejected, as we do not find a case involving blood, half of which is placed above the red line and half of which is placed below it. One either places all the blood on the lower half of the altar, as in the case of most offerings, or all of it on the upper half of the altar, as in the case of sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 53b): The High Priest took the blood of the bull into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled from the blood one time upward and then seven times downward? Apparently, part of the blood of an offering can be sprinkled upward, toward the upper part of the Ark Cover, and part can be placed downward, toward the lower part of the Ark Cover.

The Gemara rejects this: That is not a case where half the blood is sprinkled upward and half is sprinkled downward. Instead, that sprinkling was like a matzlif. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of like a matzlif? Rav Yehuda demonstrated with his hand; it means like one who whips. One who whips another does not strike repeatedly in one place but directs one lash beneath the other.

The Gemara further asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 58b) about the Yom Kippur service: After the High Priest sprinkled blood on the four corners of the incense altar, he sprinkled blood seven times on tohoro of the altar.