Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Mikva'os validates a Mikvah into which three Lugin of water minus a Kortov, which was supplemented by wine which fell into it, causing the water to look like wine - because the three Lugin lacked a Kortov to begin with. Otherwise, he would have ruled that the Mikvah is Pasul.

(b) The Tana then goes on to say that if it was milk that fell into the water, and the water retained its appearance, the Mikvah would still be Kasher - because the fact remains that part of the three Lugin of water is milk (in which case, less than three Lugin of water fell into the Mikvah, which does not invalidate it). In fact, the same would apply if it had been wine (and not milk) and the water would have retained its original appearance.

(c) Despite the fact that it makes no difference whether the water looks like wine or not, the Tana switches from wine in the Reisha to milk in the Seifa - because practically speaking, one would expect the water to continue to look like water, if milk fell into it more than if wine did.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'ha'Kol Holech Achar ha'Mareh' ('it all depends on the appearance of the water').

(b) He disagrees with the Tana Kama ...

1. ... in the Reisha (in the case of wine) - inasmuch as *he* would have validated the Mikvah even if the three Lugin into which the wine fell had not lacked a Kortov.
2. ... in the Seifa (in the case of milk) - inasmuch as he would invalidate the Mikvah.

(c) Rav Papa actually asked whether the wording in the Mishnah ought to be 'Chaser Kortov' or not. If yes, then Rava would be right in establishing Rav like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri; but if not, then Rav's ruling would be unanimous.

(d) We cannot reconcile Rava's establishing Rav like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, with Rav Papa's She'eilah - because Rav Papa considers a Safek what is obvious to Rav Papa.

(a) Rav Yosef (who became ill and forgot much of his learning) maintained that he had not heard of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's ruling at all, a surprising statement (if not for his illness) - since he was a Talmid of Rav Yehudah.

(b) Abaye reminded him that he had heard it, and that he had even taught it to them. Rav Yehudah had actually taught them - the second version of Rav Papa's She'eilah, omitting the words 'Chaser Kortov' from the Tana Kama's statement (in which case Rav's ruling was unanimous).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules - that if a barrel of water falls into the sea, whoever Tovels in that spot, remains Tamei ...

(b) ... (not because it is impossible for three Lugin of water not to have remained gathered in one spot, but) - because the Tamei person may have Toveled in three Lugin of drawn water (see also Rabeinu Chananel).

(c) We extrapolate from Rav's having mentioned specifically the sea, that had the water fallen into the river, the Tevilah would be Kasher - because a river, (unlike the sea, which is relatively static) moves constantly, and the chances of three Lugin of water remaining in one place are extremely remote.

(d) We support Rav's initial statement with a Beraisa. The Tana however, presents a slightly different case. Instead of a barrel of water - he speaks about a barrel of wine (see Tosfos DH 'Tanya').

(a) The same Beraisa then rules - that the same will apply to a loaf of Terumah bread that fell into the sea at that spot after the Tamei person had Toveled there, and it too, becomes Tamei ...

(b) ... because the wine, which was rendered Tamei by the person falling in, is then Metamei it.

(c) The Tana found it necessary to add this case - because we might otherwise have thought that it is the person who began with a Chezkas Tum'ah, who remains Tamei, but the loaf, which had a Chezkas Taharah, should retain its Chazakah, and remain Tahor.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, if witnesses who testified that Reuven owes Shimon two hundred Zuz become Zomemin, they receive Malkos as well as having to pay - because the Chiyuv Malkus stems from a Lo Sa'aseh (we will elaborate shortly), whereas the payment stems from "Ka'asher Zamam".

(b) The Chachamim say 'Kol ha'Meshalem Eino Lokeh', which is learned from the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso" ('K'dei Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Machayvo Mishum Sh'tei Rish'ayos').

(c) Rebbi Meir rules that, in a case where the witnesses testified that Reuven is Chayav Malkos and then become Zomemin - they receive two sets of Malkos, one because of "Lo Sa'aneh", and the other, because of "Ka'asher Zamam".

(d) According to the Chachamim however - he receives only one set of Malkos (because of the D'rashah of "K'dei Rish'aso").

7)

(a) According to Ula, Rebbi Meir learns his ruling from the case of Motzi-Shem-Ra (where a man spoke against his newly-wed wife) - who receives Malkos and pays his wife a hundred Shekalim.

(b) We query this however, on the grounds that Motzi-Shem-Ra is a K'nas, and we cannot learn Mamon from K'nas. And we answer - that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion Eidim Zomemin is also a K'nas (and we can learn one K'nas from another).

(c) In the second Lashon, Ula's statement refers to the Beraisa concerning Nosar. Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker, ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu" - that Nosar is Patur from Malkos, because it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (a La'av that is connected to an Asei).

(d) Rebbi Akiva says - that this Limud is not necessary, since it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh', which Nosar is not subject to Malkos anyway.

(a) The basis of their Machlokes is regarding a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' - which *is* subject to Malkos according to Rebbi Yehudah (but not according to Rebbi Akiva).

(b) We refute Ula's initial source for Rebbi Yehudah (Motzi-Shem-Ra), on the grounds - that Motzi-Shem-Ra is different, inasmuch as the husband receives two punishments.

(c) So Resh Lakish cites Rebbi Yehudah's source as Eidim Zomemin (i.e. Eidei Gerushah [who receive Malkos, even though it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh']). However, we can ask on this, that Eidim Zomemin are already different - inasmuch as (unlike other La'avin) they do not require warning (in which case, Rebbi Yehudah could not learn from them).

(a) Even though Rebbi Yehudah can learn (that 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav') neither from Motzi-Shem-Ra nor from Eidim Zomemin (individually), he can (and does) however - learn it from the two combined (from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh').

(b) We ask how we can learn all 'La'avin She'Ein Bahen Ma'aseh even from the 'Tzad-ha'Shaveh', seeing as they are both K'nas. The answer is - that Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with Rebbi Akiva, and considers Eidim Zomemin Mamon (and not K'nas).

(c) We might nevertheless ask on the Tzad-ha'Shaveh - that it is 'Tzad Chamur' (each has a highly unusual Chumra [see Tosfos DH 'Ela'), and we cannot therefore learn from it.

(d) But Rebbi Yehudah does not consider this a Pircha - because, as long as the two Chumros are different, we will learn from them, as it is a 'Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim'.

(a) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah learn from the La'av of "Lo Sa'aneh" - the Torah's warning for Motzi-Shem-Ra.

(b) Rebbi Meir learns that, says Rebbi Yirmiyah, from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nish'arim Yishme'u ve'Yira'u ve'Lo Yosifu Od". The Rabbanan learn from there - the obligation to announce the death of the Eidim Zomemin (as we learned in 'Eilu Hein ha'Lokin').

(c) And Rebbi Meir learns 'Hachrazah' - from "Yishme'u ve'Yira'u".