Makkot 4a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 💬 Guemara less one kortov or any small measure of water, into which a kortov of wine fell, increasing the measure of liquid to a t…

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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. § 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.”

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français moins un kortov ou toute petite mesure d’eau, dans laquelle un kortov de vin est tombé, augmentant la mesure du liquide …

moins un kortov ou toute petite mesure d’eau, dans laquelle un kortov de vin est tombé, augmentant la mesure du liquide à un total de trois log, et l’apparence de ces trois log est comme l’apparence du vin ; et ensuite ces trois log tombèrent dans un bain rituel, complétant ses quarante se’a requis, cela n’a pas invalidé le bain rituel, parce que trois log d’eau puisée invalident le bain rituel, et moins que cette mesure d’eau est tombé dans le bain rituel. Et de même, dans un cas où il y a trois log d’eau puisée moins un kortov dans laquelle un kortov de lait est tombé et l’apparence de ces trois log est comme l’apparence de l’eau, et ces trois log tombèrent dans un bain rituel, complétant ses quarante se’a requis, cela n’a pas invalidé le bain rituel, parce que dans ce cas aussi, moins de trois log d’eau puisée sont tombés dans le bain rituel. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri dit : Tout suit l’apparence de ces trois log. Par conséquent, si elle a l’apparence du vin, cela n’invalide pas le bain rituel ; si elle a l’apparence de l’eau, cela invalide le bain rituel. Peut-être Rav Yehuda dit-il que Rav dit que le mélange d’eau et de vin n’invalide pas le bain rituel parce qu’il tient conformément à l’opinion de Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, que tout suit l’apparence. Rabbi Ḥiyya tient conformément à l’opinion du premier tanna, que la quantité d’eau puisée est le facteur décisif, et par conséquent, quelle que soit son apparence, trois log d’eau invalident un bain rituel. La Guemara demande : Cette question n’avait-elle pas déjà été soulevée comme dilemme par Rav Pappa ? Comme Rav Pappa a soulevé un dilemme : Il y a deux façons d’expliquer la mishna. L’une est que Rav enseigne : Dans un cas où il y a trois log d’eau puisée moins un kortov, dans la première clause. Mais dans un cas où il y a trois log complets d’eau, selon le premier tanna, cela invalide le bain rituel même si son apparence est celle du vin. Et Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri vient dire : Tout suit l’apparence, ce qui signifie que même dans ce cas, si son apparence est celle du vin, cela n’invalide pas le bain rituel. Et si c’est là la dispute, Rav énonce son opinion conformément à l’opinion de Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Ou peut-être Rav n’a-t-il pas enseigné : Dans un cas où il y a trois log d’eau puisée moins un kortov, dans la première clause de la mishna ; plutôt, il a enseigné : Dans un cas où il y a trois log complets d’eau dans laquelle un kortov de vin est tombé. Selon cette version de la mishna, même le premier tanna convient que si son apparence est celle du vin, cela n’invalide pas le bain rituel. Et quand Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri est en désaccord, ce n’est que par rapport à la dernière clause qu’il est en désaccord, dans le cas de trois log d’eau puisée moins un kortov dans laquelle un kortov de lait est tombé et l’apparence de ces trois log est comme l’apparence de l’eau. Le premier tanna tient que pour invalider un bain rituel, deux critères doivent être remplis : Il doit y avoir trois log d’eau et son apparence doit être celle de l’eau. Dans ce cas, il y a moins de trois log d’eau. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri tient qu’il n’y a qu’un seul critère, l’apparence. Par conséquent, dans le cas du lait, le bain rituel est invalidé. Et selon cette dernière interprétation de la dispute, Rav énonce son opinion conformément à l’opinion de tout le monde. Pourquoi alors Rava dit-il : Cette déclaration de Rav est conforme à l’opinion de Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri ? La Guemara répond : Ce n’est pas difficile, car bien que pour Rav Pappa il y ait un dilemme sur la façon d’interpréter la mishna, pour Rava c’est évident. À propos de cette discussion, la Guemara rapporte que Rav Yosef dit : Je n’ai pas entendu cette halakha concernant le dilemme de savoir si la première clause de la mishna inclut l’expression : Moins un kortov. Abaye lui dit : Tu nous l’as dit, mais tu as oublié à cause de ta maladie. Et voici ce que tu nous as dit : Rav n’a pas enseigné : Moins un kortov, dans la première clause de la mishna, et Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri est en désaccord seulement par rapport à la dernière clause, et c’est Rav qui énonce son opinion conformément à l’opinion de tout le monde. § Et Rav Yehuda dit que Rav dit : Dans le cas d’un tonneau plein d’eau puisée qui tomba dans la mer Méditerranée, concernant celui qui s’immerge là à l’endroit où l’eau est tombée, l’immersion n’a pas effectué sa purification, parce que nous craignons que trois log d’eau puisée ne soient rassemblés en un seul endroit, à l’endroit où il s’immerge. La Guemara qualifie cette halakha : Et cela s’applique spécifiquement à la mer Méditerranée, dont les eaux sont en grande partie stagnantes. Mais dans le cas d’un fleuve standard, dont les eaux coulent, non, cette halakha ne s’applique pas, car l’eau du tonneau se mêlera immédiatement à l’eau du fleuve. La Guemara note : Cela est aussi enseigné dans une baraita : Dans le cas d’un tonneau plein de vin qui tomba dans la mer Méditerranée, concernant celui qui s’immerge là, l’immersion n’a pas effectué sa purification, parce que nous craignons que trois log de vin puisé qui est impropre à l’immersion ne soient rassemblés en un seul endroit. Et de même, un pain de teruma qui tomba là, où le vi

📜 Makkot — 4a

📋 Références bibliques — Makkot 4a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant