38 - Makkos

105 Pages·2012·0.94 MB·English

MAKKOS 2a-24b

38

The Soncino Babylonian Talmud

Folios 2a-24b

MM AA KK KK OO SS
T R A N S L A T E D I N T O E N G L I S H W I T H N O T E S

Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5772
www.613etc.com
1
MAKKOS 2a-24b

Makko th 2a A HALUZAH,’ IT IS NOT SAID THAT
EACH [MENDACIOUS] WITNESS BE
CHAPTER I HIMSELF STIGMATIZED AS BORN OF A
DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH; HE ONLY
MISHNAH. HOW DO WITNESSES BECOME RECEIVES FORTY [LASHES]. What is the
LIABLE [TO PUNISHMENT] AS ZOMEMIM?1 sanction for this [substitutive] penalty? —
[IF THEY SAY:] ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N. [A Said R. Joshua b. Levi: R. Simeon b. Lakish9
PRIEST] IS A SON OF A WOMAN WHO HAD said that it is based on the text: then shall ye
[FORMERLY] BEEN DIVORCED2 OR A do unto him as he purposed to do;10 that is to
HALUZAH,’3 IT IS NOT SAID [IN THIS CASE] say, punish him [the culprit] and not his
THAT EACH [MENDACIOUS] WITNESS BE [innocent] offspring.11 But why should not he
HIMSELF STIGMATIZED AS BORN OF A alone be stigmatized, and not his offspring? —
DIVORCEE OR HALUZAH; HE ONLY
RECEIVES FORTY4 [LASHES]. [IF THEY SAY]: We must needs fulfill ‘as he had purposed to
‘WE TESTIFY THAT N.N. IS GUILTY OF [A do’ and in such a case we should have failed to
CHARGE ENTAILING] BANISHMENT,’5 IT IS do so.12 Bar Pada13 says that the sanction
NOT SAID [IN THIS CASE] THAT EACH [here, for the substitutive penalty of a
[MENDACIOUS] WITNESS SHOULD HIMSELF flogging] may be obtained by an argument a
SUFFER BANISHMENT; HE ONLY RECEIVES fortiori.14 What do we find in the case of the
FORTY [LASHES]. ‘desecrator’?15 The ‘desecrator’ himself does
not become ‘desecrated’ [by his forbidden
GEMARA. Should not the opening words of association]. Is it not then logical [to argue
the Mishnah have been rather, ‘How do from this] that a Zomem who only came to
witnesses not become liable [to punishment] [try and] ‘desecrate’ a person,16 but did not
as Zomemim?’ Moreover, since we read in a [in fact] desecrate him, should not become
subsequent Mishnah: But if they [i.e. counter- ‘desecrated’ himself? Rabina demurred to
witnesses] said to them, ‘How can you testify this argument, saying that if you admit this
at all, since on that very day you were with us [kind of] deduction, you nullify [in effect] the
at such and such a place?’ these are law of retaliation for Zomemim.
condemned as Zomemim,’6 does not ‘these’
imply that those in the foregoing instances are (1) Zomem-im, the plural of Zomem, lit., ‘intriguer’
or ‘schemer’ is the technical term for a type of false
not treated as Zomemim? —
witnesses (v. pp. 19 ff.) and their punishment is by

the law of retaliation (Deut. XIX, 16ff.).
The Tanna had just been dealing with the last
(2) The child of a union of a priest and a divorcee is
Mishnah in the preceding tractate [of considered a Halal, i.e., vulgarized, desecrated, and
Sanhedrin]7 to which this Mishnah is but a disqualified from priestly office. (Lev. XXI, 6-8, 14-
15; Ezek. XLIV, 22.)
sequel, namely: ‘All Zomemim are led forth to
(3) The widow of a man (absolutely) childless, who
meet a talionic death save Zomemim in an
had been discharged by performing the halizah (lit.,
accusation of adultery8 against the [married] ‘the drawing off’, sc., the shoe. Deut. XXV, 5-10) is
daughter of a priest, and her paramour, who designated Haluzah-widow, and is (Rabbinically)
are led forth to meet not the same death [as considered tantamount to a divorcee and
consequently may not be married to a priest.
she], but another [manner of] death.’
Haluzah may be taken to mean either ‘discharged’,
Accordingly in our Mishnah we are provided
‘withdrawn’ (cf. Hosea, V. 6); or, ‘drawer of the
with other instances of Zomemim where the
shoe’, v. M. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar,
main law of retaliation is not enforced, but ‘a 235.
flogging of forty’ [lashes] is inflicted instead: (4) According to Rabbinic interpretation of Deut.
XXV, 2-3, the maximum number of lashes was
[IF THEY SAY:] ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N.
‘forty save one’, v. p. 155.
[A PRIEST] IS A SON OF A WOMAN WHO
(5) v. Num. XXXV, 10ff. and Deut. XIX, 4-5.
HAD [FORMERLY] BEEN DIVORCED OR
2
MAKKOS 2a-24b

(6) V. infra 5a. [IF THEY SAY:] ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N.N.
(7) Mishnah Sanh., XI, 6, the final clause in that IS GUILTY OF A CHARGE [ENTAILING
tractate, both in our editions of the Mishnah and
THE PENALTY OF] BANISHMENT What is
the Palestinian recessions. The order is, however,
the sanction for this (substitutive) penalty? —
different in our editions of the Babylonian Talmud,
where it is not the last chapter, but the last but one Said Resh Lakish,2 It is based on the text
(Chap. X, fol. 89a). which reads: He, he-shall-flee3 unto one of the
(8) The specific penalty for a priest's daughter cities of refuge, which emphatically asserts
caught in adultery was Burning (Lev. XXI, 9.; Gen.
that he alone shall flee, but not the Zomemim.
XXXVIII, 24; cf. Sanh. 50a seq.). The seducer of
R. Johanan said that the sanction for this
any married woman was to be strangled, v. 84b. On
the traditional methods of execution, v. Sanh. VII. (substitutive penalty of a flogging) may be
(9) The words ‘R. Simeon b. Lakish said’ are obtained by argument a fortiori, thus: Now,
omitted in some texts and questioned on the ground what do we find in the case of one who had
that R. Joshua b. Levi was the older of the two and
affected his intended act [of murder]? He is
could not have been the former's disciple; but this
form of reporting does not invariably imply not banished.4 Is it not then logical [to argue
discipleship, v. Yad Malaki, sect. 74. from this] that Zomemim who had not
(10) Deut. XIX, 29. [actually] effected their intended act should
(11) I.e., if the Zomemim are priests, their innocent not be banished? But does not this [very]
children would, on the application of the law of
argument point to a reverse conclusion? For
retaliation thenceforth, also become stigmatized as
is it not logical [to argue] that he who had
‘desecrated’, cf. p. 1, n. 2.
(12) Hence ‘lashes’ are inflicted instead. effected the intended act [of murder] is not to
(13) I.e., R. Judah b. Pedayah, one of R. Joshua b. go into banishment, so as not to obtain the
Levi's teachers. possibility of atonement; whereas the
(14) Hebrew, Kal Wahomer, lit., ‘the light and the
Zomemim who have not effected their
grave’ set in contrast; an argument by analogy,
intended act, should be allowed to go into
either from the lesser to the more important or
from the more important to the lesser, V. Glos. Note banishment, so as to obtain the possibility of
that we have here an instance of two tendencies in atonement? Hence the derivation as from the
attempting to trace accepted principles back to their text, given by Resh Lakish, is the best. ‘Ulla
origins. Some seek their origin in the Bible, others
said: Where is there found an allusion in the
again delight also in giving them a logical basis by
Torah to the treatment of Zomemim-
deduction.
(15) A priest who enters into a forbidden union witnesses? Where is there found an allusion in
‘desecrates’ the woman and all her future offspring. the Torah to Zomemim-witnesses! Is it not
V. p. 1, notes 2 and 3. prescribed, then shall ye do unto him as he
(16) Impugning by false evidence the past status of a
had purposed to do unto his brother?5 What
priest's mother. For a historical illustration v. Kid.
is meant is some allusion in the Torah for
66a, and Josephus, Ant., XIII, 10, 5 — 6.
inflicting on Zomemim-witnesses a flogging
Makkoth 2b [in lieu of retaliation]! —

For, [you might argue,] what do we find in the It is written: And they shall justify the
case of one who [as witness]1 had stoned a righteous and condemn the wicked: and it
person? He himself is not stoned. Is it not then shall be if the wicked man deserve to be
logical [to argue from this] that one who had beaten [flogged], that the judge shall cause
only purposed to stone another [by his him to lie down and be beaten forty [lashes].6
evidence] but did not succeed in stoning him, Now, is it because the judges justify the
should not be stoned himself? Hence the righteous and condemn the wicked’, that ‘the
derivation as taught from the text in the first wicked man deserve to be beaten’?7 But, if
instance, is the best. you refer the text to a case where witnesses
had incriminated a righteous man; then came
other witnesses who justified the righteous’,
[that is, indicated his innocence as heretofore],
3
MAKKOS 2a-24b

and ‘condemned the wicked’, [that is, proved Said R. Papa: Not [necessarily] so! Both17
the former witnesses wicked men] then [you may be taken to consider ransom as a form of
can say that] ‘if the wicked man’ [the Zomem] expiation [of guilt], only here they differ on
‘deserve to be beaten,8 the judge shall cause this, that one Master considers the assessment
him to lie down and be beaten.’ Cannot the should be based on the value of the injured
sanction for the flogging be derived from the [dead] person, while the other Master
eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear considers that it should be based on the value
false witness against thy neighbor?9 No, it of the person responsible for the injury. What
cannot be, as that is a prohibition applying to is the reason underlying the view held by our
no [tangible] action, and ‘wherever a Rabbis?18 — They argue that as the same
prohibition is contravened without [involving expression for assessment is used in two
tangible] action, no flogging is inflicted’.10 proximate instances in the same chapter,19
therefore just as in the former instance the
Our Rabbis taught: Four observations were assessment is based on the injured [dead
made in reference to Zomemim-witnesses, child], the assessment in the second instance20
they [a] are not stigmatized as born of [a is likewise to be based on the [dead] person
priest and] a woman who had been a divorcee [injured by the ox].
or a Haluzah;11 [b] do not go into banishment
to the cities of refuge; [c] are not made to pay And what is R. Ishmael's [reason]? — He
ransom;12 and [d] are not sold as slaves.13 In argues that the text states [explicitly the
the name of R. Akiba it was stated that they compensation to be] for the redemption of his
are also not made to pay [compensation] on life [soul]. And [what is the reply of] the
their own admission.14 ‘They are not Rabbis [to this interpretation]? — Yes indeed,
stigmatized as born of [a priest and] a the text has it for the redemption of his life
divorcee or a Haluzah’ — as we have already [soul]; nevertheless, in regard to the amount
explained [above]. ‘They do not go into to be paid assessed according to the value of
banishment to the cities of refuge’ — as we the injured.21
have already explained [above]. ‘They are not
made to pay ransom’ — because ransom is ‘And they are not sold as slaves’ — R.
held to be [a form of] atonement and these Hamnuna22 was inclined to argue that this
fellows stand in no need of that.15 exemption would be granted only where the
[innocently] accused had the means to pay his
Who could be the Tanna who considers threatened fine; for, inasmuch as he would
ransom as [a form of] atonement?— Said R. then not have been sold, they [the Zomemim]
Hisda: It is R. Ishmael, son of R. Johanan b. should likewise not be sold; but where he
Berokah, as it has been taught: It is written, himself had no means, the Zomemim, even
then he shall give for the redemption of his though they have the means, should be sold.
life [whatever is laid upon him],16 that is,
compensation for the [life of] the person [Said Raba to him:] Let the Zomemim say to
injured [dead]. R. Ishmael, son of R. Johanan him, ‘If you had the means, would you have
b. Berokah, says: It is compensation for [his been sold? Therefore, we likewise should not
own life], the one responsible for the injury. Is be sold.’ But what R. Hamnuna did propose
it not right to assume that [ultimately] they to argue was that this exemption should be
differ in the interpretation of the import of granted only where either he or they have the
Kofer [ransom]; one Master considering the means; but where neither he nor they have
ransom merely as pecuniary satisfaction, means they should be sold.23 Said Raba to
whilst the other Master interprets it as [a him: The Divine Law24 prescribes, If he has
form of] expiation [of guilt]? nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft,25
which directs that he be sold for theft, but not
4
MAKKOS 2a-24b

for insidious scheming. ‘In the name of R. (11) V. Glos.
Akiba it was stated that they do not pay on (12) Pecuniary compensation chargeable on a fatal
accident caused by a vicious animal, due to the
their own admission.’
owner's negligence; v. Ex. XXI, 28ff. If the charge

was made on fictitious evidence, and the witnesses
What is R. Akiba's reason [for this were found Zomemim, they do not pay the amount
exemption]? — He considers this that the court might have imposed on the one
compensation as Kenas26 and Kenas is not accused innocently.
(13) If they had accused one of having stolen, and
payable on one's own admission. Rabbah
the accused had not the means to pay, v. Ex. XXI,
[commenting on this] said: You may recognize
37; XXII, 1-3.
it as such, because, you see, these [schemers] (14) When witnesses are proved Zomemim and they
have actually done nothing [tangible], yet they make a timely confession of their guilt, they are not
are put to death or made to pay damages. R. made to pay the statutory fines.
(15) As their beast has not actually killed a human
Nahman [commenting] said: You may
being.
recognize it as Kenas, as the money remains
(16) Ex. XXI, 30. If there be laid on him (רפכ
[undisturbed] in the possession of the owner, atonement) a sum of money, then he shall give for
yet those fellows are made to pay. the (ןוידפ redemption) ransom of his life (Heb., soul)
whatsoever is laid upon him. In view of the last part
of verse 29, the ox shall be stoned and his owner
(1) ‘The hand of the witness shall be upon him first
also shall be put to death, it is difficult to say which
to put him to death’ (Deut. XVII, 7). If the intrigue
of the two is demanded, atonement for the
was not discovered till after the execution had taken
negligence which resulted in the death of a human
place, the Zomemim were not punished by
being, or the pecuniary compensation, redemption,
retaliation, v. p. 25.
for the loss to the capacity of the family. V.
(2) Resh Lakish's view is given by Bar Pedayah in J.
Nahmanides and Ibn Ezra on Exodus.
Mak, i. 1.

(17) Lit., ‘all the world.’
(3) סוני אוה Deut. XIX, 5. The verb סוני alone, means
(18) I.e. the representatives of the anonymous
he shall flee; the addition of the pronoun אוה = he,
opinion.
adds emphasis to the subject of the verb.
(19) I.e., Ex. XXI, 22, (where one hurt a woman
(4) Deliberate murder is not punished by
with child, so that her fruit depart from her); and
banishment, but by death. Yet, if on technical
verse 30, (where one's ox killed a man).
grounds the criminal escapes the extreme penalty,
(20) Ibid. 30.
he is not relegated into banishment (either for
(21) I.e., by the method indicated in verse 22 (in the
atonement, or protection from the ‘avenger’).
case of the child).
(5) Deut. XIX, 19.
(22) There were several Babylonian scholars of that
(6) Deut. XXV, 1ff. Notice, there is no mention of
name; this contemporary of Raba is the fourth on
Zomemim or any indication in the text or context.
the list in Hyman's Toledoth I, p. 378.
What ‘Ulla reads into it is therefore only claimed as
(23) The words, ‘said Raba to him’ are to be
a suggestion, a mere allusion and no more,
omitted, according to a marginal note; but on closer
(7) V. next note.
examination the whole passage down to the next
(8) I.e., where retaliation is inapplicable or cannot
‘said Raba to him,’ will be found to be a later
be justly imposed. This is not altogether so strained
insertion, out of harmony. It is not in the Munich
an interpretation as it may seem at first. The main
text, v. D.S, p. 2.
difficulty here is the word ביר ‘a contention’,
(24) V. Glos.
‘controversy’, between two parties; the penalty of
(25) Ex. XXII, 2.
flogging is not determined by the relative
(26) A monetary imposition (more than is due), by
righteousness of the one and the wickedness of the
way of penalty. The rule is obtained from Ex. XXII,
other, but is inflicted for religious, ritual, or moral
8, ‘whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay
transgressions. Hence, the reference is to the
double, but not on his own admission. (Rashi); v.
attempts of contentious fellows to degrade an enemy
Glos.
by a false imputation; v, the comments of

Nahmanides, Malbim and J.Z. Meklenburg, Ha-
Makkoth 3a
Ketab we-ha-Kabbalah, a,I.
(9) Ex. XX, 13.
(10) V, infra, 16a. Mere speaking is generally (with How has this money remained undisturbed?
the exception of some specific instances), not
[Obviously] because they had done nothing
considered ‘action’.
5
MAKKOS 2a-24b

[tangible]! [But] that is just what Rabbah ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE ON THE
said! — Then it should be reported thus: And BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE
so had also said R. Nahman. Said Rab Judah: WILLING TO OFFER THE WOMAN FOR HER
Rab said that a Zomem-witness pays his KETHUBAH IN THE EVENT OF HER BEING
quota. What is meant by ‘pays his quota’? If WIDOWED OR DIVORCED OR,
it means that this one pays half and that one ALTERNATIVELY, HER HUSBAND
half, we learn this already expressly: INHERITING HER AFTER HER DEATH.
Monetary impositions are divided
proportionately, but [the number of] lashes is GEMARA. How is it appraised? — Said R.
not divided proportionately!1 This dictum is Hisda: The appraisement is made on the basis
applicable where only one of the witnesses of the husband's claims.7 R. Nathan b. Oshaia
was found a Zomem, in which case he would says: On the basis of the woman's claims;8 R.
be made to pay his half [of the fine]. But does Papa says: On the basis of the woman's claims
he in such a case pay at all? Is it not taught: and strictly on her kethubah.9
‘No Zomem-witness pays money [damages]
until the two of them have been found MISHNAH. [IF THEY SAY]: ‘WE TESTIFY
Zomemim’? — THAT N.N. OWES HIS FRIEND ONE
THOUSAND ZUZ10 WITH AN UNDERTAKING
Said Raba: It has a possible application where THAT HE WILL RETURN THE SAME TO HIM
one of the Zomemim admits, ‘I gave false THIRTY DAYS HENCE’, WHILE THE DEBTOR
evidence’. But would we accept such SAYS ‘TEN YEARS HENCE’, THE
statement coming from him?2 What about ASSESSMENT [OF THE FINE] IS MADE ON
[the rule]: A witness, once he has made his THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE
depositions [before the Court], cannot retract WILLING TO OFFER FOR [THE DIFFERENCE
and testify again? — Hence this dictum can BETWEEN] HOLDING THE SUM OF ONE
only be applied where one says: ‘We gave THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE REPAID IN THIRTY
evidence and were found Zomemim by such DAYS OR IN TEN YEARS HENCE.
and such a Court’.3
GEMARA. Said Rab Judah: Samuel said that
Now, with whose view will this explanation if one lent his friend a sum of money for ten
accord? — Not with R. Akiba's; for how years, the [end of the] Sabbatical year will
could this accord with what he said: ‘They cancel that debt;11
also do not pay on their own admission’!
Hence Rab's dictum is applicable only when (1) Infra 5a.
one of the witnesses says, ‘We gave evidence, (2) And reverse the judgment claim?
(3) Whereas the other witness does not admit.
were found Zomemim by such and such a
(4) As a judgment debt which can be proved, it is no
Court and were condemned to pay a sum of
longer a voluntary admission to be waived on
money’.4 Now [in such a case] you might technical grounds.
presumably expect me to argue that since this (5) The ‘document, containing among other
fellow cannot [by his sole statement] commit undertakings a settlement on the wife payable at
her husband's death, or on her being divorced by
his confederate, he could not commit himself
him. V. Glos. The husband presumably contests this
either; therefore Rab teaches us that in this
statement, and ultimately the witnesses are proved
instance a Zomem pays his quota. intriguers and have to pay damages as Zomemim.
(6) Lit., ‘to-day or to-morrow’. The husband having
MISHNAH. [IF THEY SAY:] ‘WE TESTIFY lost practically nothing by the evidence of these
witnesses cannot expect an award equal to the full
THAT N.N. DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND HAS
amount of the kethubah.
NOT PAID HER KETHUBAH’5 SEEING THAT (7) E.g., the value of a speculative loan obtainable
HER KETHUBAH WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE by the husband on the kethubah, in the event of his
TO BE PAID, SOONER OR LATER6 THE wife's death, and some compensation for their
6
MAKKOS 2a-24b

attempt to deprive him forthwith of his enjoyment neighbor, yet that injunction is inapplicable at
of the usufruct of his wife's property, on which he the time of the incidence of the Sabbatical
might likewise have a favorable offer by way of a
year.
loan.

(8) E.g., the advance she might have obtained on her
kethubah. As the woman's rights, however, had not Said R. Kahana: We have learnt likewise:
been assailed by these witnesses, the estimated THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON THE
‘advance’ is to be deducted from the actual amount BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE
due to her on the kethubah-settlement and the
WILLING TO GIVE FOR HOLDING THE
balance is the husband's award, apart from the
SUM OF ONE THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE
threatened immediate loss of the usufruct.
(9) R. Papa does not allow the claim of the REPAID IN THIRTY DAYS OR IN TEN
threatened loss of usufruct, of which these witnesses YEARS HENCE. Now, if you would say that
may plead they had no cognizance, and therefore, the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, then the
not having assailed this item, they are not liable on
Zomemim should be made to pay even the
that account (Rashi).
whole capital? —
(10) The zuz is a small silver coin corresponding to
the Attic drachm and Roman denarius, worth about
9d. Said Raba: [This argument is not conclusive,
(11) V.Deut. XV, 1ff. as] the Mishnah might deal with the case of a

loan against a pledge, or, where the creditor
Makkoth 3b
deposited his bills at the Court. This also Rab

Judah said: Samuel said that if one says to his
even though [it might be argued that] at the
friend ‘[I lend you this money] on condition
time of its incidence the injunction: he shall
that the Sabbatical year shall not cancel the
not exact it of his neighbor1 is inapplicable,2 it debt for me,’ the Sabbatical year does cancel
does nevertheless become applicable,
it. Is it to say that Samuel considers this a
ultimately.3 R. Kahana4 referred him back [to stipulation that is in conflict with what is
the Mishnah]: THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE
prescribed in the Torah, and [the rule is]: ‘If
ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE
one makes a stipulation which is in conflict
MIGHT BE WILLING TO GIVE FOR [THE
with what is prescribed in the Torah,6 his
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN] HOLDING THE
stipulation is void’? But has it not been stated:
SUM OF ONE THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE
If one said to his friend, ‘[I sell you this thing]
REPAID IN THIRTY DAYS OR IN TEN
on condition that you have no plaint of an
YEARS HENCE. Now, if it were as you say
unfair deal7 against me,’ Rab says he has a
that the Sabbatical year cancels the debt, then
plaint; and Samuel says he has no plaint of an
the Zomemim ought to be made to pay even
unfair deal against him? —
the whole capital? —

Yes, but behold on this very point R. ‘Anan is
Said Raba: The Mishnah might be dealing
stated to have said: I had it explained to me
with the case of a loan against a pledge, or
by [Mar]8 Samuel himself, that [if a person
where the creditor deposited his bills at the
stipulate] ‘on condition that you have no
Court, as we learnt: ‘A loan against a pledge
plaint of an unfair deal against me,’ he has no
or one where the creditor had delivered the
plaint; but if he stipulate that no plaint of an
bill thereof to the court, is not cancelled5 [by unfair deal shall obtain in the deal, it does
the Sabbatical year].’ Some report this
obtain. Exactly the same [distinction holds
discussion thus: Rab Judah said that Samuel
good in regard to the Sabbatical year; if he
said that if one lends to his friend a sum of
stipulate] ‘on condition that you do not cancel
money for ten years, the Sabbatical year does
the debt for me in the Sabbatical year’, the
not cancel the debt, and even though
Sabbatical year does not cancel it, but, ‘on
ultimately it becomes subject to the
condition that the Sabbatical year does not
injunction, he shall not exact it of his
cancel it,’ the Sabbatical year does cancel it. A
7
MAKKOS 2a-24b

Tanna taught: If a person lends his friend
some money without specifying a date [for R. Kahana demurred to this view, asking
repayment] he may not demand it of him for what is the difference between this process [of
thirty days at least.9 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah enlarging the neck] and broaching a cask
put forward a reasoned argument before Rab [which is admittedly permitted]? — [Rab
that this restraint could only be intended for a Judah] said in reply that there is a rending of
loan against a Shetar,10 because nobody would integral parts of the woven material in the
take trouble to execute a written instrument case of the garment; whereas the stopper is
for less than thirty days; but in the case of a not an integral part of the cask [but merely
loan parol, the restriction did not apply. inserted]. Rab Judah also said: Rab said that
if a Kortob15 of wine fell into three logs15 of
Said Rab to him: ‘[No!] thus said my Beloved water, imparting a wine color, and this
[Uncle]:11 It is the same whether one lends [mixture] again fell into a Mikweh,16 the
against a Shetar or parol’. It has likewise been Mikweh is not thereby rendered ineffectual.
taught: If one lends money to his friend R. Kahana demurred to this, asking: What is
without specifying a time [for repaying], he the difference between a mixture of wine and
may not demand repayment for at least thirty water and the dye-water about which we
days, no difference being made whether it be learnt: R. Jose says that dye-water renders
a loan against a Shetar or parol. Samuel the Mikweh ineffectual?17 Said Raba to him:
[once] said to R. Mattena: Don't squat down12 [There is a difference], as there, people call it
before you give me an explanation of the ‘dye-water’, whereas here, they call it ‘diluted
origin of the oft-repeated dictum of our wine’. But yet, did not R. Hiyya teach: These
Teachers: If one lends money to his friend spoilt the efficacy of the Mikweh?18 —
without specification [of date], he may not
demand repayment for thirty days, at least, Said Raba to him: There is no difficulty, as
no difference being made whether it be parol one [Rab] presents R. Johanan b. Nuri's view,
or against a Shetar. He replied: It is written, while the other [R. Hiyya] presents the view of
[Beware that there be not a base thought in the Rabbis; as we learnt:19 If a Kortob of wine
thy heart saying,] the seventh year, the year of fell into three logs of water
release is at hand, [and thy eye be evil against
thy poor brother].13 Now, from the import of (1) Ibid. 2.
the words ‘the seventh year is at hand’, is it (2) Because the agreed period of the loan (ten years)
extends beyond the ‘year of release’ and the
not obvious that it is the same as ‘the year of
creditor could not ask for its repayment then, but
release’? What instruction is then the year of
only at the end of the ten years, when the cancelling
release intended to convey? It is to tell you power of the Sabbatical year will be past.
that there is yet another, a kindred form of (3) I.e., retrospectively.
release; which is it? — (4) Probably a disciple of Raba.
(5) Sheb. X, 2. This formal exemption was a social

and economic measure called Prosbul instituted by
It is when one lends his friend some money
Hillel. If a creditor deposited formally his claim to
without specifying a date [for repayment], in the Court, he was no longer an individual creditor
which case he may not demand repayment of against his brother (v. Deut. XV, 3). Similarly a
him for thirty days, at least. [Why thirty pledge (against a debt) acted as a sort of anchorage
keeping the debt fast, as a pledge cannot be wiped
days?] Because the Master has enunciated [in
out like negotiable money that had actually been
other matters] that thirty days prior to the
used. V. Git. 37a.
incidence of the Sabbatical year, count as a (6) V. Deut. XV, 2. This rule is enunciated by
year.14 Rab Judah also said the following: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in Keth. IX, 1.
Rab said that if one forcibly enlarges the (7) Ona'ah overreaching, a stipulation in conflict
with Lev. XXV, 14, oppress being taken to mean to
opening for the neck in a new garment on the
Sabbath day, he is liable in a sin-offering.
8
MAKKOS 2a-24b

overreach, to deal unfairly. Cf. B.M. IV, 3 ff. and colour.1 But, that is just the point on which R.
Talm, fol. 51a seq. Papa sought a solution.2
(8) An honorific title, Master, a reading well
attested D.S, p. 3.
For R. Papa asked whether Rab read in the
(9) Tosef. B.M. X, 1.
(10) A written document. ‘Starr’ is an adopted word first clause of the Mishnah ‘three logs short of
in mediaeval Anglo-Jewish history. Tovey, Anglia a Kortob’, and if so, then [a] the Tanna3 of
Judaica, p. 32. that first clause [presumably] holds that [a
(11) R. Hiyya the Great. Rab and Rabbah b. Bar
Kortob of wine which has fallen into full]
Hanah were cousins and fellow-students under their
‘three logs’ of water would render the
paternal uncle Hiyya in Palestine.
(12) A familiar phrase for ‘before settling down;’ Mikweh ineffectual, and consequently, [b] R.
students usually sat low, on the floor. V. Ab. I, 4. Johanan b. Nuri expressed his dissent,
(13) Deut. XV, 9. [namely] that it all depends on the colour4
(14) V.R.H. 9bff, where it is suggested as a sort of
[rather than on the measure of the liquid]. In
minor year of release.
that case, Rab [as reported above] adopted
(15) Kortob: the smallest liquid measure, 1/64 of a
log, which was a small domestic measure, about 2/3 the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri. Or,
of a pint; 24 logs went to one se'ah. alternatively, Rab did not read in the first
(16) Mikweh: a well, pool or reservoir used for clause of the Mishnah ‘three logs short of a
ritual purification. Lev. XXII, 3-7. The water must
Kortob’, [but whole three logs]5 and
not be contained in a vessel or filled by means of a
consequently [a] R. Johanan b. Nuri's
vessel, but be naturally-gathered and in contact
with the ground, Lev. XI, 36. The minimum dissenting comment referred only to the last
requisite quantity for a Mikweh is 40 se'ahs (or 960 [milk] clause6 and therefore, [b] Rab [as
logs), the amount considered necessary to allow the reported] expressed a unanimous view?7 —
complete immersion of a person of average size.

Once the Mikweh has naturally attained the
This was doubtful only to R. Papa, whereas
standard quantity of 40 se'ahs nothing, save
reduction or discoloration, can then affect its Raba was certain about it.8 R. Joseph
efficacy. When under the required standard, the remarked: [Though a disciple of Rab Judah,]
Mikweh is ineffectual and the addition of three logs I never heard from him that ‘reported topic’.9
of ‘vessel-drawn’ water vitiates the whole entirely.
Said Abaye to him: You told us about this
The addition, however, of milk, wine, or other pure
very theme yourself and this is how you told it
undiluted fruit-juice neither disqualifies the
Mikweh nor helps to bring it up to standard. to us, that Rab did not read in the first clause
(17) Mik. VII, 3. of the Mishnah ‘short of a Kortob’; that R.
(18) That is, this quantity of wine and water fallen Johanan dissented only from the latter clause,
into a defective Mikweh rendered the same totally
and that Rab's statement expresses a
useless; how could Rab, Hiyya's disciple, contradict
unanimous view. Rab Judah also said: Rab
his master?
(19) Mik. VII, 5, where, however, it should be noted, said that if a cask-full of water had fallen into
the reading in the first clause is ‘three logs full’, not the Great Sea [the Mediterranean] and
as quoted in our Talmud texts, here, and Hul. 26a. someone immersed himself [ritually] on that

spot, his immersion is of no avail to him, as we
Makkoth 4a
have some misgiving lest three logs are left in

one spot [undistributed].
short of a Kortob, imparting a wine color, and

then the whole fell into a [deficient] Mikweh,
Now this applies particularly to the Great Sea
the Mikweh is not thereby rendered
where the water remains stationary, which is
ineffectual. Likewise, if a Kortob of milk fell
not the case generally in stream water. The
into three logs of water short of a Kortob, and
same has been also taught: If a cask-full of
then the whole fell into a [deficient] Mikweh,
wine had fallen into the Great Sea and
the color remaining that of water, the Mikweh
someone immersed himself on that spot, his
is not thereby rendered ineffectual. R.
immersion is of no avail to him, as we have
Johanan b. Nuri says that it all depends on the
some misgiving lest [three logs of] the wine10
9
MAKKOS 2a-24b

was left in one spot [undistributed]. And (4) I.e., if wine-colored, it is as if wine had been
likewise if a Terumah11 — loaf fell there, it is added, without adverse effects.
(5) As in the Mishnah texts.
defiled. What is the purport of the clause
(6) I.e., where the color remained that of water.
‘And likewise’? — You might argue that, as
(7) For all agree that if the color of the mixture is
in the former instance, [when in doubt] you that of wine or milk, it is without effect on the
consider the person in status quo [i.e., efficacy of the Mikweh, good or ill, even where the
defiled], you would do the same in the second milk or wine was added to three logs.
(8) I.e., that Rab adopted the view of R. Johanan b.
instance and consider the Terumah also in
Nuri.
status quo [as holy]; the second clause,
(9) אתעמש Shema'ta is something ‘heard’ from the
therefore, is essential, to inform you that the lips of an eminent person, v. Glos. R. Joseph lost his
loaf is defiled. memory after a severe illness, and Abaye often
recalled to his beloved Master his own teachings.
(10) The reason is that wine is not suitable for ritual
MISHNAH. [IF WITNESSES DECLARE]: ‘WE
immersion, v. Rashi on Shab., 144b. The reading
TESTIFY THAT N. N. OWES HIS FRIEND TWO
‘three logs of vessel-drawn’ is certainly incorrect in
HUNDRED ZUZ’, AND THEY ARE FOUND reference to wine. Cf. Hananel, Nahmanides and
ZOMEMIM, THEY ARE FLOGGED AND Strashun, a.l.
ORDERED TO PAY [CORRESPONDING (11) I.e., the priestly due given in kind, corn, wine
and oil (also fruits), which could be consumed only
DAMAGES], BECAUSE THE TITLE12 WHICH
by one in a state of ritual purity, cf. Num, XVIII,
SANCTIONS THE FLOGGING13 IS OTHER 11-13. V. Glos.
THAN THE TITLE THAT SANCTIONS THE (12) Literally, ‘name’ ‘denomination’ or ‘category’,
COMPENSATION.14 THESE ARE THE WORDS meaning the Biblical text; v. next clause of the
OF R. MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT ONE Mishnah.
(13) The breach of the ninth Commandment, Ex.
WHO IS ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES IS NOT
XX, 13.
FLOGGED. [IF WITNESSES DECLARE:] ‘WE
(14) The specific law of retaliation for ‘intriguers’,
TESTIFY THAT N. N. IS LIABLE TO A v. Deut. XIX, 19.
FLOGGING15 OF FORTY LASHES, AND THEY (15) Either in connection with an offence that he
ARE FOUND ZOMEMIM, THEY RECEIVE had committed in their presence, or they testify that
he had been sentenced to a flogging by another
EIGHTY, FORTY ON THE COUNT OF ‘THOU
tribunal, but ran away.
SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST
(16) V. p. 15, n. 4.
THY NEIGHBOR,’16 AND FORTY ON THE (17) V. p. 15, n. 5.
COUNT OF THEN SHALL YE DO UNTO HIM
AS HE PURPOSED TO DO UNTO HIS Makkoth 4b
BROTHER’.17 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R.
MEIR; BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT THEY GEMARA. The Rabbis’ view here is perfectly
RECEIVE ONLY FORTY LASHES. in order since, as it is written there, according
to his misdeed,1 can penalize him [once only],
(1) That means, if the color of the mixture (that has for a [single] ‘misdeed,’ but not [twice as] for
fallen in) was that of wine or milk, it is to be taken two misdeeds. But as to R. Meir, what is his
as wine or milk, without adverse effect on the
reason [for imposing two penalties for a single
Mikweh even if it fell in to whole three logs of
offence]? — ‘Ulla said that R. Meir inferred
water; and Rab thus follows the principle of R.
Johanan b. Nuri (v. supra note 2, end). Whether R. the principle [by analogy] from the case of the
Johanan's observation refers to the last clause ‘Defaming husband’.2 What do we find in the
alone, or also to the first, is discussed immediately. law of the ‘Defaming husband’? He is flogged
(2) As Rab, in his dictum, states that if a Kortob of
and also made to pay compensation; the same
wine fell into three logs of water, imparting a wine
should obtain in every case where the
color, there is no adverse effect on a defective
Mikweh, the discussion arises as to what reading he offender made himself liable to a flogging and
followed, in his interpretative dictum. compensation. [No!] This is no analogy,
(3) I.e., the authority, though unnamed, yet because what is that law of the ‘Defaming
representing the consensus of the Sages, v. Glos.
10