Makkot 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

Lacking a kortov—

a small amount of water, so that there were not three full log of water there,

that fell into them

of the water

a kortov

a small amount of

wine,

and the kortov of wine completed the water to the measure of three log,

and

now

their appearance

of the three log, in which a small amount of wine was mixed, is

like the appearance of wine, and they fell into the mikve—

they did not invalidate it.

Because the water itself did not contain three complete log of water.

And not only when the appearance of the water was like that of wine, in which case they do not invalidate it, but—

likewise

the law applies even to

three log of water lacking a kortov, into which a kortov of milk fell,

which is white, and a small amount of it does not alter the color of the water, and the kortov of milk completed the water to three log,

and their appearance

of the three log of water

was like the appearance of water, and they fell into the mikve—

they did not invalidate it.

Because the water itself did not contain three full log of water.

That is to say, there is no difference whether the three log appear like water or like wine. For drawn water invalidates the mikve only when the water itself contains three log of water.

This is the view of the Rabbis.

And Rabbi Hiyya inferred from this Mishna that the sole reason preventing the water from invalidating the mikve is the fact that it does not contain three complete log of drawn water. But if there were three complete log of water, then even if their appearance were like wine, they would invalidate the mikve; one does not follow appearance either leniently or stringently.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Everything follows appearance.

And water whose appearance is like wine does not invalidate a mikve, even if it contains three log of water in its own right.

And Rav holds likewise.

And conversely, he also rules stringently: If a kortov of milk fell into water and everything appeared like water, the milk combines with the water to complete the measure of three log of water and thereby initially invalidate the mikve. For according to him, everything depends on appearance, both leniently and stringently.

And we raise an objection: How could Rava state with certainty that Rav’s ruling is the subject of a dispute among tannaim?

But Rav Pappa raised it as a question,

as he was uncertain about this matter: How did Rav explain this Mishna, and according to whose view did he state his ruling that water appearing like wine does not invalidate the mikve? Did he state this according to everyone, or did the tannaim dispute the matter, with Rav adopting the ruling of only one of the tannaim?

For Rav Pappa raised the following question:

Did

Rav teach

the Mishna according to our version in the words of the first tanna, in which we read

“lacking a kortov”

at the outset,

with regard to three log into which a kortov of wine fell? That is, according to the first tanna, the water does not invalidate the mikve only because the kortov is lacking.

But three log

of water,

according to the first tanna, do invalidate it,

even if they appear like wine. It follows that according to the first tanna everything depends solely on the actual presence of three log of water, and not on the appearance of the water.

And Rabbi Yohanan

ben Nuri

came to say: Everything follows appearance,

both leniently and stringently; accordingly, he disagrees with the first tanna from one extreme to the other.

And Rav, who said

the preceding statement, held

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

that one follows appearance, and the appearance of wine does not invalidate the mikve.

And this is in accordance with Rava, who attributed Rav’s view to the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

Or perhaps Rav did not teach

“lacking a kortov”

at the outset,

with regard to wine that became mixed with water. Rather, the case concerns three complete log of drawn water into which wine became mixed. Nevertheless, they do not invalidate the mikve because their appearance is like that of wine.

Accordingly, even the first tanna agrees that, leniently, one follows appearance. If so, according to everyone, three log of water that appear like wine do not invalidate the mikve, since they do not appear like water.

And when Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees,

only

with regard to the latter clause does he disagree!

That is, he disagrees with the first tanna only with regard to the latter clause, which concerns three log of drawn water lacking a kortov, into which milk fell. There the first tanna holds that the milk does not complete the water to three log, despite the fact that the appearance of the three mixed log is like that of water, since in order to invalidate the mikve there must be a complete measure of three log of water, and the appearance of water is insufficient to complete the measure, as one does not follow appearance stringently.

And in this Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with the first tanna, holding that everything follows appearance, both leniently and stringently. In his view, the milk combines with the drawn water to complete the measure of three log and invalidate the mikve, since the appearance here is that of three log of water.

And Rav, who said

with regard to wine that even three log of water appearing like wine do not invalidate the mikve, stated his view

in accordance with everyone.

For as stated, both the first tanna and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri hold that the water must also have the appearance of water in order to invalidate the mikve.

And since Rav Pappa was uncertain about the matter, from where did Rava know that Rav followed only the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, and not that of everyone!?

And we answer: Indeed,

Rav Pappa was uncertain

whether Rav could state his words in accordance with everyone.

However,

for Rava it was obvious

that Rav’s view was only in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

And he reads the first clause, concerning wine that became mixed with water, as “lacking a kortov,” and holds that according to the first tanna one does not follow appearance at all; the water does not invalidate the mikve only because the measure of three log of water is incomplete. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with him in this, and Rav ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

Rav Yosef said:

I am a student of Rav Yehuda,

yet I have not heard this teaching

which they now transmit in his name, that he said in the name of Rav that three log of water whose appearance is like wine do not invalidate the mikve!

Rav Yosef’s astonishment was due to his illness, as a result of which he had forgotten his learning.

Therefore,

Abaye said to him,

Rav Yosef’s student:

You yourself stated it to us

this teaching in the name of Rav Yehuda.

And this is how you stated it to us:

When you taught us this Mishna concerning three log in tractate Mikvaot, you told us the statement of Rav Yehuda, who said it in the name of Rav.

And you explained to us that Rav stated his words in accordance with everyone, because

Rav did not teach

in the Mishna

“lacking a kortov”

at the outset, and he understood that the reason the first tanna does not invalidate the mikve is not that the measure of three log of water is incomplete, but that their appearance is not like water, but like wine.

And therefore he concluded that

Rabbi Yohanan

ben Nuri

disagrees only with regard to the latter clause,

concerning water lacking a kortov, to which milk was added. The first tanna said that it does not invalidate the mikve because the measure of water is incomplete, whereas Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri held that it does invalidate the mikve because the milk combines with the water, so long as their appearance remains like water.

And Rav, who said

that three log of water appearing like wine do not invalidate the mikve,

stated this in accordance with everyone

.

And now the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A barrel full of water that fell

its contents of water

into the Great Sea,

an impure person

who immerses there

in the place where the barrel’s water fell—

his immersion is not effective!

Because

we are concerned about three log

of drawn water from the barrel

remaining in one place.

Although the entire sea is not rendered invalid, we are concerned that he may have immersed his head and the majority of his body in drawn water at the place where the barrel’s water fell, and the person immersing there is thereby disqualified from eating teruma.

The Sages decreed that bathing in three log of drawn water [whether by immersion or by pouring it over one’s head and body] disqualifies a pure person from eating teruma, because people would bathe in drawn water after immersion, and the Sages feared that people would err and make bathing in drawn water primary, rather than immersing in the mikve itself.

Specifically

when the water fell

into the Great Sea,

one may not immerse there, because we are concerned that the water remained in one place, since

it remains standing,

meaning that the drawn water remains where it fell and does not immediately mix with the seawater, because there is not much current or movement in the sea.

But

if the water fell into

an ordinary river, no

we are not concerned that the drawn water remained standing in one place, because the river flows and mixes it with the river water.

It was taught likewise:

With regard to liquids that fell into the sea, there is concern that they remained in one place and did not mix with the seawater.

For it was taught in the Tosefta [Mikvaot 5:5]:

A barrel full of wine that fell into the Great Sea; one who immerses there—

his immersion is not effective.

And the reason for the matter is that perhaps the wine that had been in the barrel is still standing there in one place and has not yet mixed with the seawater; consequently, he immersed in wine and not in water, and his immersion is not effective. And likewise,

that perhaps the wine in the barrel is still standing there in one place and has not yet mixed with the sea water. It follows that he immersed in wine and not in water, and his immersion was not effective.

a teruma loaf that fell there

into the place of the wine, where the impure person immersed and did not become pure,

is impure

the loaf, because we are concerned that the wine is still standing in its place, became impure through the impure person who immersed in it, and then the wine rendered the teruma loaf impure.

It is evident from this entire baraita that the wine that fell into the sea is treated as though it remains separately in its place.

The Gemara now analyzes the wording of the Tosefta:

What is the meaning of

“and likewise”?

It is obvious that just as we are concerned that the water remains in its place with regard to the person’s immersion, so that his immersion is ineffective, the same law applies with regard to the impurity of the loaf that fell in that place after the impure person immersed there. What, then, does this phrase add!?

The Gemara explains that the tanna needed to teach us this, because—

Lest you say: There,

with regard to a person’s immersion at the place where the wine fell, it is logical that he does not become pure, because we say:

Establish the person according to his presumptive status,

and since he was certainly impure, whereas his immersion is doubtful, once there is concern that the wine remains in its place, his immersion is not effective.

But

here,

with regard to a teruma loaf that fell after his immersion into the place where the wine fell, we do not render the loaf impure as a matter of doubt, since one can say:

Establish

the teruma loaf

according to its presumptive status

that it was pure, while the place where the wine fell is impure only as a matter of doubt, since one can also say that it moved from its place and the loaf fell into the seawater.

Therefore,

he teaches us

the tanna of the Tosefta that even where there is a presumption of purity, we are concerned that the wine remains in its place, and the loaf is impure as a matter of doubt.

Mishna:

a. Witnesses who said:

“We testify concerning so-and-so that he owes his fellow two hundred zuz,” and they were found to be conspiring witnesses—

they are flogged

for having violated the negative commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow,”

and they pay

the money that they intended to cause him to lose, two hundred zuz.

They are not exempted by one punishment, because

the same Name

the verse

that brings them to lashes [“

You shall not bear false witness against your fellow”]

does not bring them to monetary payment.

For they become liable on the basis of the verse, “You shall do to him as he intended to do to his brother,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Anyone who pays—

does not receive lashes!

One does not impose two punishments for a single act, as it is written, “according to the measure of his wickedness,” and we expound: Because of one wickedness you may hold him liable, but you may not hold him liable because of two wickednesses. Therefore, they are punished by paying what they intended to cause, and exempted from lashes.

[However, one cannot say that they should be flogged and not pay, as we maintain that one who is flogged does not pay, because here the Torah explicitly included that conspiring witnesses pay, as explained in Ketubot 32a. Rashi.]

b. Witnesses who said

“We testify that so-and-so is liable to receive forty lashes,” and they were found to be zomemim—

receive eighty lashes.

Forty

because

they transgressed

“You shall not bear false witness against your fellow”,

and

forty

because “you shall do to him as he plotted”,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They receive only forty lashes,

because of “as he plotted”.

But they do not receive lashes for lo ta'aneh, since it serves as the warning for zomemim witnesses, while their punishment is “as they plotted,” as the Gemara explains.