Sanhedrin 4B

אמרת: יש אם למקרא.

You therefore say in response: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and the verse prohibits cooking the young goat in its mother’s milk.

אלא, דכולי עלמא יש אם למקרא, ורבי ורבנן בהא קמיפלגי: רבי סבר ״ירשיען אלהים״⁠ – אחריני, ורבנן סברי ״ירשיען״⁠ – דהאיך והאי.

Rather, everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative. But in actuality, R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this: R' Yehuda HaNasi holds that the phrase “the court should condemn” is referring to other judges, in addition to the 3 that were derived from the earlier verse, leading to a total of 5, whereas the Rabbis hold that the term “should condemn” means these judges, i.e., those who have already been mentioned, and therefore there are only 3.

ורבי יהודה בן רועץ, לא פליגי רבנן עליה.

And with regard to R' Yehuda ben Roetz, who applied the principle: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, to the question of the duration of the ritual impurity of a woman who gave birth to a female, it can be explained that the Rabbis do not disagree with him, as everyone agrees that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.

בית הלל, דתניא: ״וכפר״, ״וכפר״, ״וכפר״⁠ – מפני הדין.

With regard to Beit Hillel, who hold that a single presentation of blood is sufficient to atone even when bringing a sin-offering, this is not because they hold the traditional consonantal text is authoritative. Rather, their opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin-offering brought by a ruler: “And the priest should make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to a sin-offering of a goat brought by an ordinary person: “And the priest should make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to a sin-offering of a lamb brought by an ordinary person: “And the priest should make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:35), repeating this term 3 times. This repetition is due to the following logical inference: