Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 9, 2017 | 讻壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 4

Dedicated in memory of Shimon ben Yehuda Yirmiyahu.

Different statements of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav are brought regarding mikvaot.聽 聽The mishna brings a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis about whether or not conspiring witnesses getting the punishment of what they conspired to do and also get lashes for the negative commandment of testifying falsely.聽 The gemara discusses their opinions.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讬讬谉 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 讬讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜 讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讞诇讘 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

less one kortov or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a total of three log, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of wine; and then those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it did not invalidate the ritual bath, because three log of drawn water invalidate the ritual bath, and less than that measure of water fell into the ritual bath. And likewise, in a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov into which a kortov of milk fell and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water, and those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it did not invalidate the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three log of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those three log. Therefore, if it has the appearance of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath; if it has the appearance of water it invalidates the ritual bath. Perhaps Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the mixture of water and wine does not invalidate the ritual bath because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri that everything follows the appearance. Rabbi 岣yya holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that the amount of drawn water is the decisive factor, and therefore, regardless of its appearance, three log of water invalidates a ritual bath.

讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 驻住诇讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛 讜专讘 讗讜诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 this matter already raised as a dilemma by Rav Pappa? As Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: There are two ways to explain the mishna. One is that Rav teaches: In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause. But in a case where there are three complete log of water, according to the first tanna, it invalidates the ritual bath even if its appearance is that of wine. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri comes to say: Everything follows the appearance, meaning that even in that case, if its appearance is that of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath. And if that is the dispute, Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙 讗住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙

Or perhaps Rav did not teach: In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause of the mishna; rather, he taught: In a case where there are three complete log of water into which a kortov of wine fell. According to this version of the mishna, even the first tanna agrees that if its appearance is that of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath. And when Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagrees, it is only with regard to the latter clause that he disagrees, in the case of three log of drawn water less one kortov into which a kortov of milk fell and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water. The first tanna holds that in order to invalidate a ritual bath two criteria must be fulfilled: There must be three log of water and its appearance must be that of water. In this case there is less than three log of water. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that there is only one criterion, appearance. Therefore, in the case of milk, the ritual bath is invalidated.

讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

And according to this latter rendering of the dispute, Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of everyone. Why then does Rava state: This statement of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri?

诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as although for Rav Pappa there is a dilemma how to interpret the mishna, for Rava it is obvious.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讛讻讬 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Apropos this discussion, the Gemara relates that Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this halakha with regard to the dilemma whether the first clause of the mishna includes the phrase: Less one kortov. Abaye said to him: You said it to us, but you forgot due to your illness. And this is what you said to us: Rav did not teach: Less one kortov, in the first clause of the mishna, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagrees only with regard to the latter clause, and it is Rav who states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of everyone.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 诪讬诐 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讚讜拽讗 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讚拽讗讬 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 谞讛专讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of a barrel full of drawn water that fell into the Mediterranean Sea, concerning one who immerses there in the spot where the water fell, the immersion did not effect his purification, because we are concerned that three log of drawn water should not be collected in one place, in the place where he immerses. The Gemara qualifies this halakha: And this applies specifically to the Mediterranean Sea, whose waters are largely stagnant. But in the case of a standard river, whose waters flow, no, this halakha does not apply, as the water from the barrel will immediately intermingle with the river water.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讻谉 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇 砖诐 讟诪讗

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of a barrel full of wine that fell into the Mediterranean Sea, concerning one who immerses there, the immersion did not effect his purification, because we are concerned that three log of drawn wine that is unfit for immersion should not be collected in one place. And likewise, a loaf of teruma that fell there, where the wine fell, is impure through contact with the wine.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讗讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 讗讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讗 讗讜拽讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讞讝拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the clause introduced with the term: And likewise? If the concern is that the wine remained in one place and did not intermingle with the seawater, ostensibly that concern applies to halakhot of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to immersion, the reason he is impure is that since there is uncertainty whether his immersion effected his purification, the principle is: Establish the person on his presumptive status of impurity. But here, in the case of a loaf of teruma, since there is uncertainty whether it was rendered impure, the principle is: Establish the teruma on its presumptive status of purity. Therefore, the tanna of the baraita teaches us that the concern that the loaf touched the wine is substantial to the extent that it prevails even over the loaf鈥檚 presumptive status of purity.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛砖诐 讛诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 诪讻讜转 诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

MISHNA: If witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to pay another person two hundred dinars, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged, and they pay the money they sought to render him liable to pay. Why do they receive two punishments? It is due to the fact that the source that brings them to liability to receive lashes is not the source that brings them to liability for payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays as punishment for a transgression is not flogged for that same transgression.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注谞讛 讘专注讱 注讚 砖拽专 讜诪砖讜诐 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐

Likewise, if witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to receive forty lashes, and they were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged with eighty lashes; one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), which is the punishment for conspiring witnesses; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired.鈥

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 讻转讬讘 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to the initial dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the mishna whether conspiring witnesses pay and are flogged, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, the verse that states: 鈥淭he judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), is written concerning one who was liable to receive lashes. From 鈥渁ccording to the measure of his wickedness鈥 it is inferred with regard to an individual who commits one transgression: For one evildoing you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings, i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act. But according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason that he is punished twice for committing a single transgression?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗祝 讻诇 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 拽谞住 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗

Ulla said: Rabbi Meir derived this halakha from the halakha concerning one who defames his wife, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that she was not a virgin: Just as the defamer is flogged and pays, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall chastise him and fine him one hundred silver coins鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18鈥19), so too, anyone who commits a transgression punishable with lashes and a monetary payment is flogged and pays. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of a defamer? It is notable in that the payment of the defamer is a fine, which is a fixed sum that the Torah deems him liable to pay. How can the halakha of conspiring witnesses, whose payment is monetary restitution, be derived from there? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The payment that conspiring witnesses are liable to pay is a fine.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚注讜诇讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until morning, but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the remains after it has taught a prohibition, which states: 鈥淵ou shall let nothing of it remain,鈥 to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. This is a prohibition whose transgression entails the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, in which the mitzva serves to rectify the violation of the prohibition, and no lashes are administered.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Akiva says: The fact that one is not flogged is not for that reason; rather, it is due to the fact that this prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain,鈥 is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. The Gemara learns by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds in principle with regard to a prohibition that does not involve an action, that one is flogged for its violation. From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that one is flogged in that case?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda derived this halakha from the defamer; just as the defamer violates a prohibition that does not involve an action, as it involves only speech, and one is flogged for its violation, so too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of the defamer? It is notable in that he is flogged and pays for violation of a single prohibition. Due to that stringency, other less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of the defamer.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙诪专 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛转专讗讛

Rather, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Yehuda derives this principle from the case of conspiring witnesses. Just as the conspiring witnesses violate a prohibition that does not involve an action and an individual is flogged for its violation, so too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of conspiring witnesses? It is notable in that the witnesses do not require forewarning in order to administer their punishment, which is an exception to the principle that corporal punishment may be administered only after forewarning. Due to that stringency, other less strin-gent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of conspiring witnesses.

诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: The case of the defamer will prove that the absence of forewarning is not a significant factor, as the defamer requires forewarning and nevertheless is flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an action. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The defining characteristic of this case is not like the defining characteristic of that case, and the defining characteristic of that case is not like the defining characteristic of this case. Their common denominator is that in both cases there is a prohibition that does not involve an action and one is flogged for its violation. So too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 拽谞住 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about their common denominator? They are notable in that payment in both cases is a fine, and therefore other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the payment of conspiring witnesses is a fine. In his opinion, therefore, that is not a common denominator.

讗诇讗 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讚 讞诪讜专 诇讗 驻专讬讱

Rather, the Gemara proposes an alternative refutation: What is notable about their common denominator? They are notable in that the cases of the defamer and of conspiring witnesses both contain a stringent aspect; therefore, other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The stringency in the case of the defamer is that he both is flogged and pays, and the stringency in the case of conspiring witnesses is that they do not require forewarning. The Gemara answers: And Rabbi Yehuda does not refute a derivation from a common denominator based on the fact that both cases contain a different stringent aspect. He holds that the mere fact that there is a stringency in each does not serve as a common denominator.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讗 转注谞讛 讘专注讱 注讚 砖拽专 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

搂 The Gemara resumes its analysis of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the case of conspiring witnesses who testify that another is liable to receive lashes. Rabbi Meir holds that they are flogged with eighty lashes, one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). The Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired.鈥 The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, concerning this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,鈥 what do they derive from it, if one is not flogged for its violation?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讝讛专讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讛谞砖讗专讬诐 讬砖诪注讜 讜讬专讗讜 讜诇讗 讬住讬驻讜 注讜讚

The Gemara answers: They require that verse as a prohibition against conspiring witnesses. Every punishment enumerated in the Torah, including that of conspiring witnesses, is accompanied by an explicit verse prohibiting the action that results in the punishment. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, who holds that conspiring witnesses are flogged for violating this prohibition, from where does he derive a prohibition for conspiring witnesses? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He derives it from the verse written in the context of conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall not continue to perform any more evil of this kind in your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:20). The verse warns that conspiring witnesses should not continue with their sinful conduct.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And concerning the Rabbis, what do they derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary according to the Rabbis

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 4

讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讬讬谉 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 讬讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜 讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讻谉 拽讜专讟讜讘 讞诇讘 讜诪专讗讬讛谉 讻诪专讗讛 诪讬诐 讜谞驻诇讜 诇诪拽讜讛 诇讗 驻住诇讜讛讜

less one kortov or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a total of three log, and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of wine; and then those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it did not invalidate the ritual bath, because three log of drawn water invalidate the ritual bath, and less than that measure of water fell into the ritual bath. And likewise, in a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov into which a kortov of milk fell and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water, and those three log fell into a ritual bath, completing its requisite forty se鈥檃, it did not invalidate the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three log of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those three log. Therefore, if it has the appearance of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath; if it has the appearance of water it invalidates the ritual bath. Perhaps Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the mixture of water and wine does not invalidate the ritual bath because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri that everything follows the appearance. Rabbi 岣yya holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that the amount of drawn water is the decisive factor, and therefore, regardless of its appearance, three log of water invalidates a ritual bath.

讛讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 专讘 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 驻住诇讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪专讗讛 讜专讘 讗讜诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 this matter already raised as a dilemma by Rav Pappa? As Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: There are two ways to explain the mishna. One is that Rav teaches: In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause. But in a case where there are three complete log of water, according to the first tanna, it invalidates the ritual bath even if its appearance is that of wine. And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri comes to say: Everything follows the appearance, meaning that even in that case, if its appearance is that of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath. And if that is the dispute, Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙 讗住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙

Or perhaps Rav did not teach: In a case where there are three log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause of the mishna; rather, he taught: In a case where there are three complete log of water into which a kortov of wine fell. According to this version of the mishna, even the first tanna agrees that if its appearance is that of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath. And when Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagrees, it is only with regard to the latter clause that he disagrees, in the case of three log of drawn water less one kortov into which a kortov of milk fell and the appearance of those three log is like the appearance of water. The first tanna holds that in order to invalidate a ritual bath two criteria must be fulfilled: There must be three log of water and its appearance must be that of water. In this case there is less than three log of water. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that there is only one criterion, appearance. Therefore, in the case of milk, the ritual bath is invalidated.

讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

And according to this latter rendering of the dispute, Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of everyone. Why then does Rava state: This statement of Rav is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri?

诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as although for Rav Pappa there is a dilemma how to interpret the mishna, for Rava it is obvious.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 诇讛 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讛讻讬 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 讞住专 拽讜专讟讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讬驻讗 驻诇讬讙 讜专讘 讚讗诪专 讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Apropos this discussion, the Gemara relates that Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this halakha with regard to the dilemma whether the first clause of the mishna includes the phrase: Less one kortov. Abaye said to him: You said it to us, but you forgot due to your illness. And this is what you said to us: Rav did not teach: Less one kortov, in the first clause of the mishna, and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagrees only with regard to the latter clause, and it is Rav who states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of everyone.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 诪讬诐 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讚讜拽讗 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讚拽讗讬 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 谞讛专讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of a barrel full of drawn water that fell into the Mediterranean Sea, concerning one who immerses there in the spot where the water fell, the immersion did not effect his purification, because we are concerned that three log of drawn water should not be collected in one place, in the place where he immerses. The Gemara qualifies this halakha: And this applies specifically to the Mediterranean Sea, whose waters are largely stagnant. But in the case of a standard river, whose waters flow, no, this halakha does not apply, as the water from the barrel will immediately intermingle with the river water.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讘讬转 诪诇讬讗讛 讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讟讜讘诇 砖诐 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讻谉 讻讻专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇 砖诐 讟诪讗

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of a barrel full of wine that fell into the Mediterranean Sea, concerning one who immerses there, the immersion did not effect his purification, because we are concerned that three log of drawn wine that is unfit for immersion should not be collected in one place. And likewise, a loaf of teruma that fell there, where the wine fell, is impure through contact with the wine.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讗讜拽讬 讙讘专讗 讗讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讗 讗讜拽讬 转专讜诪讛 讗讞讝拽讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the clause introduced with the term: And likewise? If the concern is that the wine remained in one place and did not intermingle with the seawater, ostensibly that concern applies to halakhot of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to immersion, the reason he is impure is that since there is uncertainty whether his immersion effected his purification, the principle is: Establish the person on his presumptive status of impurity. But here, in the case of a loaf of teruma, since there is uncertainty whether it was rendered impure, the principle is: Establish the teruma on its presumptive status of purity. Therefore, the tanna of the baraita teaches us that the concern that the loaf touched the wine is substantial to the extent that it prevails even over the loaf鈥檚 presumptive status of purity.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛砖诐 讛诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 诪讻讜转 诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

MISHNA: If witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to pay another person two hundred dinars, and they were found to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged, and they pay the money they sought to render him liable to pay. Why do they receive two punishments? It is due to the fact that the source that brings them to liability to receive lashes is not the source that brings them to liability for payment; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays as punishment for a transgression is not flogged for that same transgression.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注谞讛 讘专注讱 注讚 砖拽专 讜诪砖讜诐 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐

Likewise, if witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he is liable to receive forty lashes, and they were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, they are flogged with eighty lashes; one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), which is the punishment for conspiring witnesses; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired.鈥

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 讻转讬讘 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: With regard to the initial dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the mishna whether conspiring witnesses pay and are flogged, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, the verse that states: 鈥淭he judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), is written concerning one who was liable to receive lashes. From 鈥渁ccording to the measure of his wickedness鈥 it is inferred with regard to an individual who commits one transgression: For one evildoing you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings, i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act. But according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason that he is punished twice for committing a single transgression?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗祝 讻诇 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 拽谞住 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗

Ulla said: Rabbi Meir derived this halakha from the halakha concerning one who defames his wife, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that she was not a virgin: Just as the defamer is flogged and pays, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall chastise him and fine him one hundred silver coins鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18鈥19), so too, anyone who commits a transgression punishable with lashes and a monetary payment is flogged and pays. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of a defamer? It is notable in that the payment of the defamer is a fine, which is a fixed sum that the Torah deems him liable to pay. How can the halakha of conspiring witnesses, whose payment is monetary restitution, be derived from there? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: The payment that conspiring witnesses are liable to pay is a fine.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚注讜诇讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until morning, but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the remains after it has taught a prohibition, which states: 鈥淵ou shall let nothing of it remain,鈥 to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. This is a prohibition whose transgression entails the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, in which the mitzva serves to rectify the violation of the prohibition, and no lashes are administered.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Akiva says: The fact that one is not flogged is not for that reason; rather, it is due to the fact that this prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain,鈥 is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. The Gemara learns by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds in principle with regard to a prohibition that does not involve an action, that one is flogged for its violation. From where does Rabbi Yehuda derive that one is flogged in that case?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda derived this halakha from the defamer; just as the defamer violates a prohibition that does not involve an action, as it involves only speech, and one is flogged for its violation, so too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of the defamer? It is notable in that he is flogged and pays for violation of a single prohibition. Due to that stringency, other less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of the defamer.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙诪专 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛转专讗讛

Rather, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Yehuda derives this principle from the case of conspiring witnesses. Just as the conspiring witnesses violate a prohibition that does not involve an action and an individual is flogged for its violation, so too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about the case of conspiring witnesses? It is notable in that the witnesses do not require forewarning in order to administer their punishment, which is an exception to the principle that corporal punishment may be administered only after forewarning. Due to that stringency, other less strin-gent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of conspiring witnesses.

诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讬讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: The case of the defamer will prove that the absence of forewarning is not a significant factor, as the defamer requires forewarning and nevertheless is flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an action. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The defining characteristic of this case is not like the defining characteristic of that case, and the defining characteristic of that case is not like the defining characteristic of this case. Their common denominator is that in both cases there is a prohibition that does not involve an action and one is flogged for its violation. So too, with regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its violation.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 拽谞住 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara questions this derivation: What is notable about their common denominator? They are notable in that payment in both cases is a fine, and therefore other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the payment of conspiring witnesses is a fine. In his opinion, therefore, that is not a common denominator.

讗诇讗 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讚 讞诪讜专 诇讗 驻专讬讱

Rather, the Gemara proposes an alternative refutation: What is notable about their common denominator? They are notable in that the cases of the defamer and of conspiring witnesses both contain a stringent aspect; therefore, other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The stringency in the case of the defamer is that he both is flogged and pays, and the stringency in the case of conspiring witnesses is that they do not require forewarning. The Gemara answers: And Rabbi Yehuda does not refute a derivation from a common denominator based on the fact that both cases contain a different stringent aspect. He holds that the mere fact that there is a stringency in each does not serve as a common denominator.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诇讗 转注谞讛 讘专注讱 注讚 砖拽专 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛

搂 The Gemara resumes its analysis of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the case of conspiring witnesses who testify that another is liable to receive lashes. Rabbi Meir holds that they are flogged with eighty lashes, one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). The Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired.鈥 The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, concerning this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,鈥 what do they derive from it, if one is not flogged for its violation?

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讝讛专讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讝讛专讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讛谞砖讗专讬诐 讬砖诪注讜 讜讬专讗讜 讜诇讗 讬住讬驻讜 注讜讚

The Gemara answers: They require that verse as a prohibition against conspiring witnesses. Every punishment enumerated in the Torah, including that of conspiring witnesses, is accompanied by an explicit verse prohibiting the action that results in the punishment. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Meir, who holds that conspiring witnesses are flogged for violating this prohibition, from where does he derive a prohibition for conspiring witnesses? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He derives it from the verse written in the context of conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall not continue to perform any more evil of this kind in your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:20). The verse warns that conspiring witnesses should not continue with their sinful conduct.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And concerning the Rabbis, what do they derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary according to the Rabbis

Scroll To Top