Makkot

even though [it might be argued that] at the time of its incidence the injunction: he shall not exact it of his neighbour1 is inapplicable,2 it does nevertheless become applicable, ultimately.3 R. Kahana4 referred him back [to the Mishnah]: THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GIVE FOR [THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN] HOLDING THE SUM OF ONE THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE REPAID IN THIRTY DAYS OR IN TEN YEARS HENCE. Now, if it were as you say that the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, then the zomemim ought to be made to pay even the whole capital? — Said Raba: The Mishnah might be dealing with the case of a loan against a pledge, or where the creditor deposited his bills at the Court, as we learnt: ‘A loan against a pledge or one where the creditor had delivered the bill thereof to the court, is not cancelled5 [by the Sabbatical year].’ Some report this discussion thus: Rab Judah said that Samuel said that if one lends to his friend a sum of money for ten years, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt, and even though ultimately it becomes subject to the injunction, he shall not exact it of his neighbour, yet that injunction is inapplicable at the time of the incidence of the Sabbatical year. Said R. Kahana: We have learnt likewise: THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GIVE FOR HOLDING THE SUM OF ONE THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE REPAID IN THIRTY DAYS OR IN TEN YEARS HENCE. Now, if you would say that the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, then the zomemim should be made to pay even the whole capital? — Said Raba: [This argument is not conclusive, as] the Mishnah might deal with the case of a loan against a pledge, or, where the creditor deposited his bills at the Court. This also Rab Judah said: Samuel said that if one says to his friend ‘[I lend you this money] on condition that the Sabbatical year shall not cancel the debt for me,’ the Sabbatical year does cancel it. Is it to say that Samuel considers this a stipulation that is in conflict with what is prescribed in the Torah, and [the rule is]: ‘If one makes a stipulation which is in conflict with what is prescribed in the Torah,6 his stipulation is void’? But has it not been stated: If one said to his friend, ‘[I sell you this thing] on condition that you have no plaint of an unfair deal7 against me,’ Rab says he has a plaint; and Samuel says he has no plaint of an unfair deal against him? — Yes, but behold on this very point R. ‘Anan is stated to have said: I had it explained to me by [Mar]8 Samuel himself, that [if a person stipulate] ‘on condition that you have no plaint of an unfair deal against me,’ he has no plaint; but if he stipulate that no plaint of an unfair deal shall obtain in the deal, it does obtain. Exactly the same [distinction holds good in regard to the Sabbatical year; if he stipulate] ‘on condition that you do not cancel the debt for me in the Sabbatical year’, the Sabbatical year does not cancel it, but, ‘on condition that the Sabbatical year does not cancel it,’ the Sabbatical year does cancel it. A Tanna taught: If a person lends his friend some money without specifying a date [for repayment] he may not demand it of him for thirty days at least.9 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah put forward a reasoned argument before Rab that this restraint could only be intended for a loan against a Shetar,10 because nobody would take trouble to execute a written instrument for less than thirty days; but in the case of a loan parol, the restriction did not apply. Said Rab to him: ‘[No!] thus said my Beloved [Uncle]:11 It is the same whether one lends against a Shetar or parol’. It has likewise been taught: If one lends money to his friend without specifying a time [for repaying], he may not demand repayment for at least thirty days, no difference being made whether it be a loan against a Shetar or parol. Samuel [once] said to R. Mattena: Don't squat down12 before you give me an explanation of the origin of the oft-repeated dictum of our Teachers: If one lends money to his friend without specification [of date], he may not demand repayment for thirty days, at least, no difference being made whether it be parol or against a Shetar. He replied: It is written, [Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart saying,] the seventh year, the year of release is at hand, [and thy eye be evil against thy poor brother].13 Now, from the import of the words ‘the seventh year . . . is at hand’, is it not obvious that it is the same as ‘the year of release’? What instruction is then the year of release intended to convey? It is to tell you that there is yet another, a kindred form of release; which is it? — It is when one lends his friend some money without specifying a date [for repayment], in which case he may not demand repayment of him for thirty days, at least. [Why thirty days?] Because the Master has enunciated [in other matters] that thirty days prior to the incidence of the Sabbatical year, count as a year.14 Rab Judah also said the following: Rab said that if one forcibly enlarges the opening for the neck in a new garment on the Sabbath day, he is liable in a sin-offering. R. Kahana demurred to this view, asking what is the difference between this process [of enlarging the neck] and broaching a cask [which is admittedly permitted]? — [Rab Judah] said in reply that there is a rending of integral parts of the woven material in the case of the garment; whereas the stopper is not an integral part of the cask [but merely inserted]. Rab Judah also said: Rab said that if a kortob15 of wine fell into three logs15 of water, imparting a wine colour, and this [mixture] again fell into a mikweh,16 the mikweh is not thereby rendered ineffectual. R. Kahana demurred to this, asking: What is the difference between a mixture of wine and water and the dye-water about which we learnt: R. Jose says that dye-water renders the mikweh ineffectual?17 Said Raba to him: [There is a difference], as there, people call it ‘dye-water’, whereas here, they call it ‘diluted wine’. But yet, did not R. Hiyya teach: These spoilt the efficacy of the mikweh?18 — Said Raba to him: There is no difficulty, as one [Rab] presents R. Johanan b. Nuri's view, while the other [R. Hiyya] presents the view of the Rabbis; as we learnt:19 If a kortob of wine fell into three logs of water for its repayment then, but only at the end of the ten years, when the cancelling power of the Sabbatical year will be past. creditor deposited formally his claim to the Court, he was no longer an individual creditor against his brother (v. Deut. XV, 3). Similarly a pledge (against a debt) acted as a sort of anchorage keeping the debt fast, as a pledge cannot be wiped out like negotiable money that had actually been used. V. Git. 37a. unfairly. Cf. B.M. IV, 3 ff. and Talm, fol. 51a seq. Hiyya in Palestine. went to one se'ah. vessel or filled by means of a vessel, but be naturally-gathered and in contact with the ground, Lev. XI, 36. The minimum requisite quantity for a mikweh is 40 se'ahs (or 960 logs), the amount considered necessary to allow the complete immersion of a person of average size. Once the mikweh has naturally attained the standard quantity of 40 se'ahs nothing, save reduction or discolouration, can then affect its efficacy. When under the required standard, the mikweh is ineffectual and the addition of three logs of ‘vessel-drawn’ water vitiates the whole entirely. The addition, however, of milk, wine, or other pure undiluted fruit-juice neither disqualifies the mikweh nor helps to bring it up to standard. Rab, Hiyya's disciple, contradict his master? our Talmud texts, here, and Hul. 26a.