## Makkot Daf 4a

###### Makkot 4a:1
[Makkot 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:1)

חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב, שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב יַיִן, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה יַיִן, וְנָפְלוּ לַמִּקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב, שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכָן קוּרְטוֹב חָלָב, וּמַרְאֵיהֶן כְּמַרְאֵה מַיִם, וְנָפְלוּ לַמִּקְוֶה – לֹא פְּסָלוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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’a*, **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’a*, **it did not invalidate** the ritual bath, because in this case too, less than three *log* of drawn water fell into the ritual bath.


###### Makkot 4a:2
[Makkot 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:2)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri that everything follows the appearance. Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.


###### Makkot 4a:3
[Makkot 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:3)

הָא מִיבַּעְיָא בָּעֵי לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא. דְּבָעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: רַב תָּנֵי: ״חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב״ בְּרֵישָׁא, אֲבָל שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין, לְתַנָּא קַמָּא פָּסְלִי, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְמֵימַר: הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּרְאֶה, וְרַב אוֹמֵר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Wasn’t** 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 Yoḥanan** 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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri.**


###### Makkot 4a:4
[Makkot 4a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:4)

אוֹ דִּלְמָא רַב לָא תָּנֵי: ״חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב״ בְּרֵישָׁא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי – כִּי פְּלִיג, אַסֵּיפָא הוּא דִּפְלִיג,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that there is only one criterion, appearance. Therefore, in the case of milk, the ritual bath is invalidated.


###### Makkot 4a:5
[Makkot 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:5)

וְרַב דְּאָמַר – כְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Yoḥanan ben Nuri?


###### Makkot 4a:6
[Makkot 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:6)

לְרַב פָּפָּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, לְרָבָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Makkot 4a:7
[Makkot 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:7)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעָא לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ לַהּ נִיהֲלַן, וְהָכִי אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, דְּרַב לָא תָּנֵי ״חָסֵר קוּרְטוֹב״ בְּרֵישָׁא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַסֵּיפָא פְּלִיג, וְרַב דְּאָמַר כְּדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Yoḥanan** 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.**


###### Makkot 4a:8
[Makkot 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:8)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חָבִית מְלֵיאָה מַיִם שֶׁנָּפְלָה לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, הַטּוֹבֵל שָׁם – לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ טְבִילָה. חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְדַוְקָא לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, דְּקָאֵי וְקָיְימָא, אֲבָל נַהֲרָא בְּעָלְמָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Makkot 4a:9
[Makkot 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:9)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: חָבִית מְלֵיאָה יַיִן שֶׁנָּפְלָה לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, הַטּוֹבֵל שָׁם – לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ טְבִילָה. חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין שְׁאוּבִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְכֵן כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפַל שָׁם – טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Makkot 4a:10
[Makkot 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:10)

מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, הָתָם אוֹקֵי גַּבְרָא אַחֶזְקֵיהּ, הָכָא אוֹקֵי תְּרוּמָה אַחֶזְקַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s presumptive status of purity.


###### Makkot 4a:11
[Makkot 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין – לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְּבִיאָן לִידֵי מַכּוֹת מְבִיאָן לִידֵי תַּשְׁלוּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם – אֵינוֹ לוֹקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Makkot 4a:12
[Makkot 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4a:12)

״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב מַלְקוֹת אַרְבָּעִים״, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין – לוֹקִין שְׁמוֹנִים, מִשּׁוּם: ״לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר״, וּמִשּׁוּם: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹקִין אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: **“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”** (Exodus 20:13), **and** one set of lashes **due to** the verse: **“And you shall do to him as he conspired”** (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 “And you shall do to him as he conspired.”