Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT MIXTURES DISQUALIFY A MIKVAH

(a) Question (Beraisa - R. Chiya): (In Rav's case) the Mikvah is disqualified.
(b) Answer (Rava): Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri, R. Chiya holds like Chachamim.

1. (Mishnah): If a Kortov of wine fell into water; the volume of the mixture is three Lugim, and it looks like wine - the mixture does not disqualify a Mikveh;
2. Similarly, if a Kortov of milk fell into water; the volume of the mixture is three Lugim, and it looks like water - the mixture does not disqualify a Mikveh;

i. R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, it all depends on the appearance (if it looks like water, it disqualifies a Mikveh).

(c) Question: Rav Papa was unsure about this!

1. Question (Rav Papa): Did Rav's text of the first clause of the Mishnah say that the volume of the *mixture* is three Lugim, but if there were three Lugim of water alone, Chachamim disqualify the Mikvah?

i. If so, Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri.

2. Or, did Rav's text say that the volume of the water is three Lugim, and R. Yochanan ben Nuri only argues in the second clause?

i. If so, Rav's law is according to everyone.

(d) Answer: Rav Papa was unsure, Rava was sure (that Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri).
(e) Rav Yosef: I (was a Talmid of Rav, I) never hear this teaching!
(f) Abaye: You yourself taught us, Rav's text says that there are three Lugim of water, Rav's law is according to everyone! (Rav Yosef forgot his learning when he fell sick.)

(a) Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Yehudah): If a barrel of water fell into the Mediterranean, one who immerses there (Ya'avetz - in the barrel) may not eat or touch Terumah, we are concerned that three Lugim remain there (of the original water - if three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim fall on a person (who immersed today), he is Tamei mid'Rabanan).
(b) Version #2 - Tosfos - (Rav Yehudah): If a barrel of wine fell into the Mediterranean, immersion there does not help, we are concerned that the wine did not disperse (and he immersed in wine, not water). (End of Version #2)

1. This only applies to the Mediterranean, which is stagnant, but rivers flow.

(c) Support (Beraisa): If a barrel of wine fell into the Mediterranean, immersion there does not help, we are concerned that (three Lugim of She'uvim - many delete this from the text) the wine did not disperse;

1. Similarly, if a Terumah loaf fell in (after a man immersed), it is Tamei (lest it touched wine that the man was Metamei).

(d) Question: What does the latter clause teach that we do not know from the first?
(e) Answer: One might have thought, it does not help to immerse, because we leave a Tamei person on his Chazakah, and likewise we leave the loaf on its Chezkas Taharah - the latter clause teaches, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If Edim Zomemim testified that Reuven owes 200 Zuz, they are lashed and pay, for different verses obligate lashes and payment;
(b) Chachamim say, anyone who pays is not lashed.
(c) R. Meir says, if Edim Zomemim testified that Reuven is liable to receive 40 lashes, they receive 80 lashes, 40 for "Lo Sa'aneh", and 40 for "Va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam";
(d) Chachamim say, he is only lashed 40.

(e) Version #1 (Gemara) Question: We understand Chachamim - they learn from "Kedei Rish'aso", a person only receives one punishment for his evil;

1. Why does R. Meir argue?

(f) Answer (Ula): He learns from Motzi Shem Ra (a man who claims that the wife he just married was not a virgin), who is lashed and pays (if found to be lying).
(g) Question: We cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra, that is a Kenas!
(h) Answer: R. Meir holds like R. Akiva who says that Edim Zomemim is a Kenas.
(i) Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Lo Sosiru...(veha'Nosar...ba'Esh Tisrofu)" - the verse gives an Ase to fix the Lav, therefore one is not lashed for it.

1. (R. Yakov): No, one is not lashed because this Lav is transgressed without an action, one is not lashed for such Lavim.

i. Inference: R. Yehudah holds that one is lashed for such Lavim.

(j) Question: What is R. Yehudah's source?
(k) Answer #1 (Ula): He learns from Motzi Shem Ra, who did not do an action, yet he is lashed.
(l) Question: We cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra, he is lashed and pays (which is more stringent than other transgressions)!
(m) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): He learns from Edim Zomemim, who did not do an action, yet they are lashed.
(n) Question: We cannot learn from Edim Zomemim, they are lashed without warning (which is more stringent than other transgressions)!
(o) Answer: Motzi Shem Ra proves that this is not the reason (he did not do an action and is lashed, even though he must be warned).

1. Each has its own stringency unlike the other; we learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) of them - they did not do an action, yet they are lashed - likewise, one is lashed for any Lav without an action.

(p) Question: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, both the sources (Motzi Shem Ra and Edim Zomemim) are Kenasos!
(q) Answer: R. Yehudah says that Edim Zomemim is not a Kenas, he argues with R. Akiva.
(r) Question: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, both the sources have stringencies not found in other transgressions!
(s) Answer: R. Yehudah does not consider that a refutation of the Tzad ha'Shavah.

(a) Question: What do Chachamim expound from "Lo Sa'aneh"?
(b) Answer: It is a warning to Edim Zomemim.(without a warning, they would not be lashed).
(c) Question: According to R. Meir, what is the warning to Edim Zomemim?
(d) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): It is "Veha'Nish'arim Yishme'u v'Yira'u v'Lo Yosifu (La'asos Od ka'Davar ha'Ra ha'Zeh)".

1. Chachamim use this to teach that we announce before killing Edim Zomemim.
2. R. Meir learns this from "Yishme'u v'Yira'u".