Makkot 4a — the Talmud in English

Lacking a kortov,

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

which 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 mikveh—

they did not disqualify it.

Because in the water itself there are not three complete log of water.

And not only is this so when the appearance of the water was like the appearance of wine, in which case they do not disqualify it, but—

likewise

the law is even with

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 change 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 mikveh—

they did not disqualify it.

Because in the water itself there are not three full log of water.

That is, there is no difference whether the three log appear like water or like wine. For the water drawn in a vessel disqualifies the mikveh only if there are in the water itself three log of water.

This is the view of the Rabbis.

And Rabbi Hiyya derived from this Mishna that the only reason preventing the disqualification of the water is the fact that there are not 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 disqualify the mikveh, and one does not follow appearance, neither for leniency nor for stringency.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance.

And water that has the appearance of wine does not disqualify a mikveh, even if there are three log of water in it independently.

And Rav holds likewise.

And likewise he holds the opposite, stringently: if a kortov of milk fell into water and everything appeared like water, the milk joins it to complete the measure to three log of water, to disqualify the mikveh initially. For according to him, everything depends on appearance, both for leniency and for stringency.

And we raise an objection: How did Rava say with certainty that Rav’s law is a dispute among tannaim?

But Rav Pappa was inquiring about it,

he was uncertain about this matter: how did Rav explain this Mishna, and according to whose method did he state his law, that water appearing like wine does not disqualify? Did he say this according to everyone, or perhaps the tannaim dispute the matter, and Rav stated his law as only one of the tannaim?

For Rav Pappa inquired:

Did

Rav teach

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

“lacking a kortov”

at the beginning,

with regard to three log into which a kortov of wine fell? That is, according to the first tanna, the water is disqualified only because of the lacking kortov.

But three log

of water,

according to the first tanna, disqualify

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

And Rabbi Yohanan came

ben Nuri

to say: Everything follows the appearance,

both for leniency and for stringency, and according to this 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 the appearance, and the appearance of wine does not disqualify.

And this is in accordance with Rava, who based Rav’s view on the method of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

Or perhaps, Rav did not teach

“lacking a kortov”

at the beginning,

with regard to wine that was mixed with water; rather, it concerns three complete log of drawn water into which wine was mixed. Nevertheless, they do not disqualify the mikveh, since their appearance is like the appearance of wine.

And according to this, it follows that even the first tanna agrees that, for leniency, one follows appearance. If so, according to everyone, three log of water that appear like wine do not disqualify the mikveh, because they do not appear like water.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, when he disagrees,

only

disagrees with the latter clause!

That is, he disagrees with the first tanna only concerning the latter clause, which deals with 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 the appearance of water, since in order to disqualify the mikveh there must be a full measure of three log of water, and the appearance of water alone is insufficient to complete the measure, because one does not follow appearance stringently.

And in this Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with the first tanna, and holds that everything follows the appearance, both for leniency and for stringency. In his view, the milk joins the water to complete the measure of three log of drawn water, to disqualify the mikveh, since there is here the appearance of three log of water.

And Rav, who said

concerning wine, that even three log of water appearing like wine do not disqualify, his method is

according to 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 disqualify.

And since Rav Pappa was uncertain about the matter, from where did Rava know that Rav follows only the method of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, and not that he speaks according to everyone!?

And we answer: Indeed,

Rav Pappa was inquiring

whether Rav could state his words according to everyone.

But

for Rava it was obvious

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

And he reads the beginning as dealing with wine mixed with water, “lacking a kortov,” and holds that according to the first tanna one does not follow appearance at all; rather, only because the three log of water are deficient do they not disqualify the mikveh. And in this Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri disagrees with him, and Rav ruled like him.

Rav Yosef said:

I am a student of Rav Yehuda,

and I have not heard this teaching

that they are now saying in his name, that he said in the name of Rav that three log of water whose appearance is like wine do not disqualify the mikveh!

And this astonishment of Rav Yosef came because of his illness, following which he forgot 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 in tractate Mikvaot this Mishna concerning three log, you stated to us about it the teaching of Rav Yehuda, who said it in the name of Rav.

And you explained to us that Rav stated his words according to everyone, because

Rav did not teach

in the Mishna

“lacking a kortov”

at the beginning, and he learned that the reason of the first tanna for not disqualifying the mikveh is not because of a deficiency in the measure of three log of water, but because their appearance is not like water, but like wine.

Therefore he learned that

Rabbi Yohanan

ben Nuri only

disagrees with the latter clause,

with the case of a lacking kortov to which milk was added: the first tanna said that they do not disqualify, because there is a deficiency in the measure of water, whereas Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri held that they do disqualify because the milk joins the water, as long as their appearance remains like water.

And Rav, who said

that three log of water appearing like wine do not disqualify,

said this according to everyone

.

And now the Gemara brings 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 water contents

into the Great Sea,

a ritually impure person

who immerses there

in the place where the water of the barrel fell—

his immersion is not effective!

Because

we are concerned about three log

of drawn water from the barrel

that they may not be in one place.

And although the entire sea was not disqualified, we are concerned that perhaps his head and the majority of his body came into drawn water in the place where the water of the barrel fell, and the person immersing in it was disqualified from eating teruma.

Since the Sages decreed concerning bathing in three log of drawn water [whether by immersion or by pouring it over his head and body] that they disqualify a pure person from eating teruma, because people used to bathe in drawn water after immersion, and the Sages were concerned that people would err and make the bathing in drawn water primary, and would not immerse in the mikveh itself.

And specifically

when the water fell

into the Great Sea,

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

it stands and remains,

for the drawn water stands in its place and does not immediately mix with the water of the sea, since there is not much current and movement in the sea.

But

if the water fell into

an ordinary river, no

we are concerned that perhaps the drawn water remained standing in one place, because the river flows and mixes it with the water of the river.

It was taught likewise:

that liquids that fell into the sea are a matter of concern, lest they remained in one place and did not mix with the water of the sea.

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

And likewise, a loaf of teruma that fell there

to the place of the wine, in which the impure person immersed and did not become pure,

the loaf is impure,

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

And it is proven from this entire beraita that the wine that fell into the sea is treated as though it stands separately in its place.

And now the Gemara discusses the wording of the Tosefta:

What is

“likewise”?

Is it not obvious that just as we are concerned that the water remains in its place with regard to the person’s immersion, so that it will not be effective for him, the same law applies with regard to the impurity of the loaf that fell in that place after the impure person immersed in it? And what has been newly taught by this!?

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

Lest you say: There,

concerning the immersion of a person in the place where the wine fell, it is logical that he does not become pure, because we say

establish the person according to his presumption,

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

But

here,

in the case of a loaf of teruma that fell after his immersion to the place where the wine fell, we do not render the loaf impure as a matter of doubt, since it may be said:

establish

the loaf of

teruma according to its presumption,

that it was pure, while the place where the wine fell is impure only as a matter of doubt, since it may also be said that it moved from its place, and the loaf fell into the water of the sea.

And therefore

he teaches us

the tanna in 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 is obligated to his fellow for two hundred dinars,” and they were found to be conspiring witnesses—

they receive lashes

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

and they pay

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

And they are not exempted through one punishment. Since

the same designation,

the verse,

that brings them to lashes [“You shall not answer against your fellow as a false witness”],

does not bring them to payment.

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

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Everyone who pays—

does not receive lashes!

They do not impose two punishments for one act, as it is written, “according to the measure of his wickedness,” and we expound: because of one wickedness you obligate him, but you do not obligate him because of two wickednesses. Therefore they are punished by paying as they intended, and exempted from the punishment of lashes.

[But one cannot say that they should receive lashes and not pay, as we have established that one who receives lashes does not pay, because here the Torah explicitly increased the law that conspiring witnesses pay, as explained in Ketubot 32a. Rashi.]

[But one cannot say that they should receive lashes and not pay, as we maintain that one who receives lashes does not pay, because here the Torah explicitly expanded the law to state that conspiring witnesses pay, as explained in Ketubot 32a. Rashi.]

b. Witnesses who said

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

are lashed eighty.

Forty

because

they transgressed

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

and

forty

because of “you shall do to him as he schemed”,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: One is lashed only forty,

because of “as he schemed.”

But for “You shall not bear false witness” they are not lashed, since it comes as a warning to edim zomemim, and their punishment is “as they schemed,” as the Gemara explains.