Makkot — Daf 4a

חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב יין ומראיהן כמראה יין ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו וכן ג' לוגין מים חסר קורטוב שנפל לתוכן קורטוב חלב ומראיהן כמראה מים ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו

ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר הכל הולך אחר המראה

הא מיבעיא בעי לה רב פפא דבעי רב פפא רב תני חסר קורטוב ברישא אבל שלשה לוגין לתנא קמא פסלי ואתא ר' יוחנן למימר הכל הולך אחר המראה ורב אומר כר' יוחנן בן נורי

או דלמא רב לא תני חסר קורטוב ברישא ור' יוחנן בן נורי כי פליג אסיפא הוא דפליג

ורב דאמר כדברי הכל

לרב פפא מיבעיא ליה לרבא פשיטא ליה

אמר רב יוסף לא שמיעא לי הא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי את אמרת לה ניהלן והכי אמרת ניהלן דרב לא תני חסר קורטוב ברישא ורבי יוחנן אסיפא פליג ורב דאמר כדברי הכל

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב חבית מליאה מים שנפלה לים הגדול הטובל שם לא עלתה לו טבילה חיישינן לשלשה לוגין שלא יהו במקום אחד ודוקא לים הגדול דקאי וקיימא אבל נהרא בעלמא לא

תניא נמי הכי חבית מליאה יין שנפלה לים הגדול הטובל שם לא עלתה לו טבילה חיישינן לשלשה לוגין שאובין שלא יהו במקום אחד וכן ככר של תרומה שנפל שם טמא

מאי וכן מהו דתימא התם אוקי גברא אחזקיה הכא אוקי תרומה אחזקה קמ"ל:

מתני׳ מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שחייב לחבירו מאתים זוז ונמצאו זוממין לוקין ומשלמין שלא השם המביאן לידי מכות מביאן לידי תשלומין דברי ר' מאיר וחכ"א כל המשלם אינו לוקה

מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב מלקות ארבעים ונמצאו זוממין לוקין שמונים משום (שמות כ, יג) לא תענה ברעך עד שקר ומשום (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם דברי ר' מאיר וחכ"א אין לוקין אלא ארבעים: גמ׳

short of a kortob, imparting a wine colour, and then the whole fell into a [deficient] mikweh, the mikweh is not thereby rendered ineffectual. Likewise, if a kortob of milk fell into three logs of water short of a kortob, and then the whole fell into a [deficient] mikweh, the colour remaining that of water, the mikweh is not thereby rendered ineffectual. R. Johanan b. Nuri says that it all depends on the colour.1 But, that is just the point on which R. Papa sought a solution.2 For R. Papa asked whether Rab read in the first clause of the Mishnah ‘three logs short of a kortob’, and if so, then [a] the Tanna3 of that first clause [presumably] holds that [a kortob of wine which has fallen into full] ‘three logs’ of water would render the mikweh ineffectual, and consequently, [b] R. Johanan b. Nuri expressed his dissent, [namely] that it all depends on the colour4 [rather than on the measure of the liquid]. In that case, Rab [as reported above] adopted the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri. Or, alternatively, Rab did not read in the first clause of the Mishnah ‘three logs short of a kortob’, [but whole three logs]5 and consequently [a] R. Johanan b. Nuri's dissenting comment referred only to the last [milk] clause6 and therefore, [b] Rab [as reported] expressed a unanimous view?7 — This was doubtful only to R. Papa, whereas Raba was certain about it.8 R. Joseph remarked: [Though a disciple of Rab Judah,] I never heard from him that ‘reported topic’.9 Said Abaye to him: You told us about this very theme yourself and this is how you told it to us, that Rab did not read in the first clause of the Mishnah ‘short of a kortob’; that R. Johanan dissented only from the latter clause, and that Rab's statement expresses a unanimous view. Rab Judah also said: Rab said that if a cask-full of water had fallen into the Great Sea [the Mediterranean] and someone immersed himself [ritually] on that spot, his immersion is of no avail to him, as we have some misgiving lest three logs are left in one spot [undistributed]. Now this applies particularly to the Great Sea where the water remains stationary, which is not the case generally in stream water. The same has been also taught: If a cask-full of wine had fallen into the Great Sea and someone immersed himself on that spot, his immersion is of no avail to him, as we have some misgiving lest [three logs of] the wine10 was left in one spot [undistributed]. And likewise if a terumah11 — loaf fell there, it is defiled. What is the purport of the clause ‘And likewise . . . ‘? — You might argue that, as in the former instance, [when in doubt] you consider the person in status quo [i.e, defiled], you would do the same in the second instance and consider the terumah also in status quo [as holy]; the second clause, therefore, is essential, to inform you that the loaf is defiled. MISHNAH. [IF WITNESSES DECLARE]: ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N. OWES HIS FRIEND TWO HUNDRED ZUZ’, AND THEY ARE FOUND ZOMEMIM, THEY ARE FLOGGED AND ORDERED TO PAY [CORRESPONDING DAMAGES], BECAUSE THE TITLE12 WHICH SANCTIONS THE FLOGGING13 IS OTHER THAN THE TITLE THAT SANCTIONS THE COMPENSATION.14 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT ONE WHO IS ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES IS NOT FLOGGED. [IF WITNESSES DECLARE:] ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N. IS LIABLE TO A FLOGGING15 OF FORTY LASHES, AND THEY ARE FOUND ZOMEMIM, THEY RECEIVE EIGHTY, FORTY ON THE COUNT OF ‘THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR,’16 AND FORTY ON THE COUNT OF THEN SHALL YE DO UNTO HIM AS HE PURPOSED TO DO UNTO HIS BROTHER’.17 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT THEY RECEIVE ONLY FORTY LASHES. GEMARA.. without adverse effect on the mikweh even if it fell in to whole three logs of water; and Rab thus follows the principle of R. Johanan b. Nuri (v. supra note 2, end). Whether R. Johanan's observation refers to the last clause alone, or also to the first, is discussed immediately. adverse effect on a defective mikweh, the discussion arises as to what reading he followed, in his interpretative dictum. mikweh, good or ill, even where the milk or wine was added to three logs. after a severe illness, and Abaye often recalled to his beloved Master his own teachings. vessel-drawn’ is certainly incorrect in reference to wine. Cf. Hananel, Nahmanides and Strashun, a.l. of ritual purity, cf. Num, XVIII, 11-13. V. Glos. sentenced to a flogging by another tribunal, but ran away.