(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Makos 4


(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.
Why does the Tana validate the Mikvah? What would be the Din if the water had not lacked a Kortov to begin with?

(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.
Why is that? Would it have made any difference if it had been wine, and the water would have retained its original appearance?

(c) Seeing as it makes no difference whether it is milk or wine that fell into the water, why does the Tana switch from wine in the Reisha to milk in the Seifa?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os say?

(b) In which point does he disagree with the Tana Kama ...

  1. ... in the Reisha (in the case of wine)?
  2. ... in the Seifa (in the case of milk)?
(c) Rav Papa actually asked whether the wording in the Mishnah ought to be 'Chaser Kortov' or not.
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah? What would differ if the words were missing (with regard to Rav's previous ruling)?

(d) And how will we then reconcile Rava's establishing Rav like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, with Rav Papa's She'eilah?

(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.
Why would one have expected him to have been aware of it?

(b) Abaye reminded him that he had heard it, and that he had even taught it to them.
Which version of Rav Papa's She'eilah had he taught them?

(a) What did Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say about a barrel of water that fell into the sea?

(b) What is his reason for this ruling? Is it because it is impossible for three Lugin of water not to have remained gathered in one spot?

(c) We extrapolate from Rav's having mentioned specifically 'the sea', that had the water fallen into the river, the Tevilah would be Kasher.
Why is that?

(d) We support Rav's initial statement with a Beraisa. The Tana however, presents a slightly different case.
Which case does he present?

(a) What does the same Beraisa then say about a loaf of Terumah bread that fell into the sea at that spot?

(b) Why does the loaf become Tamei?

(c) Why did the Tana find it necessary to add this case? Why is it not self-understood from the initial case?

(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.
Why is that?

(b) What do the Chachamim say? Why is that?

(c) What does Rebbi Meir say in a case where the witnesses testified that Reuven is Chayav Malkos and then become Zomemin?

(d) And what do the Chachamim say?

Answers to questions



(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).
Which two punishments does the husband receive?

(b) We query this however, on the grounds that Motzi-Shem-Ra is a K'nas, and we cannot learn Mamon from K'nas.
What do we answer?

(c) In the second Lashon, Ula's statement refers to the Beraisa concerning Nosar.
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker, ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu"?

(d) What reason Rebbi Akiva say? Why is there no Malkos according to him?

(a) What is the basis of their Machlokes? What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'?

(b) On what grounds do we refute Ula's initial source for Rebbi Yehudah (Motzi-Shem-Ra)?

(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']).
What Pircha can we ask on this? In what way are Eidim Zomemin already different (in which case, Rebbi Yehudah could not learn from them)?

(a) If Rebbi Yehudah can learn (that 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav') neither from Motzi-Shem-Ra nor from Eidim Zomemin, then where does he learn it from?

(b) How can we learn all 'La'avin She'Ein Bahen Ma'aseh even from the 'Tzad-ha'Shaveh', seeing as they are both K'nas?

(c) What might we nevertheless ask on the Tzad-ha'Shaveh?

(d) Why does Rebbi Yehudah not consider this a Pircha?

(a) What do the Rabbanan in our Mishnah learn from the La'av of "Lo Sa'aneh"?

(b) Rebbi Meir learns that, says Rebbi Yirmiyah, from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'ha'Nish'arim Yishme'u ve'Yira'u ve'Lo Yosifu Od".
What do the Rabbanan learn from there?

(c) And from where does Rebbi Meir learn 'Hachrazah'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,