Gemara Bekiyot Daf Daled

Gemara summary: Daf Daled

Gemara: the Gemara continues the debate on the previous daf, about the laws of a mikveh and whether a mixture that falls into the mikveh is judged based on the color or the mixture’s majority.

Rava quotes a Mishnah, which states that if a kortov of wine fell into three lugin of drawn water less a kortov  (total three lugin of liquid in mixture), and the color of the mixture is that of the wine, and the mixture fell into a deficient mikveh, the mixture does not invalidate the mikveh and can be used to complete the needed forty se’ah measure of water to complete a mikveh. Similarly, if a kortov of milk fell into three lugin of drawn water less than a kortov, and the color of the mixture was colorless (like water), and the mixture fell into the mikveh, the mixture does not invalidate the mikveh (Tana Kammah). Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says, everything depends on color (and therefore the colorless mixture with the milk, would indeed invalidate the mikveh because it is the color of water.)

The Gemara now addresses Rava’s explanation that Rav’s ruling is only consistent with Rav Yochanan ben Nuri. Rav Papa wondered if Rav had the reading of “less a kortov” in the Mishnah’s first case (with the wine), as cited in the version above? If so, then if there were three full lugin of drawn water (aside from the wine), the mixture would invalidate the mikveh according to the Tanna Kammah  (as he doesn’t consider color a factor). Whereas, R’ Yochanan would say that everything is based on color. Therefore, Rav who rules that wine colored mixture doesn’t disqualify the mikveh even if it has three full lugin of water, follows only R’ Yochanan. Or perhaps, Rav didn’t have the reading “less than a kortov” in the Mishnah’s case with the wine and therefore R’ Yochanan ben Nuri would only disagree with the Tanna Kammah in the Mishnah’s case about the milk. (Tannah Kammah says it would not invalidate the mikveh because mixture doesn’t have three full lugin of water, R’ Yochanan would say it would invalidate mikveh because the color is like water.) Accordingly, Rav is in accordance with both views.

Gemara responds and says that although this was a question to Rav Papa, to Rava it was clear that Rav was only consistent with R’ Yochanan ben Nuri. Abaye tells Rav Yosef, who didn’t hear of Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav, that he was taught the Mishnah to not include “less a kortov” and that Rav’s view was in accordance with both views.

Another ruling by Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav was about a barrel filled with water or wine that fell into the Great Sea and whether the person who immersed himself there was still tamei because of it. The same rule, that the person was still tamei, also was true if a loaf of terumah fell into the Great Sea, even though you would have thought that you would maintain the terumah in its previous status before it fell into the Sea.

Mishnah: Edim Zomemin testify falsely that a person owes his fellow two hundred zuz. According to Rav Meir, they receive malkus (lashes) for their false testimony and pay their victim the amount they intended him to lose, because these two punishments are derived from two different pesukim. The Chachamim, however, say that whoever pays does not receive malkus. The same applies respectively for the Chachamim and Rav Meir, in a case when the Edim Zomemin falsely testify that ploni is liable for forty lashes. According to Rav Meir, the Edim Zomemin each get 80 lashes, one set for violating “don’t bear false witness” and one for the pasuk “you should do to him as he planned…” The Chachamim say that they would only get 40 lashes each for their hazamah penalty, and not for false testimony.

Gemara: The Rabbi’s view makes sense because of the pasuk “In accordance with his wickedness” which teaches he is liable for one wickedness but not two. What is the reasoning for R’ Meir’s view?  Ulla says that R’ Meir’s view is derived from the law of one who slanders his wife; just as one who slanders his wife gets lashes and pays, so too anyone who does crime that would receive both lashes and monetary payment, receives both punishments. The Gemara then asks, how can this comparison be made if the one who defames his wife pays a fine, but Zomemin don’t get a fine, rather compensation. Because R’ Meir holds like R’ Akiva who says that Edim Zomemin’s witness if a fine.

There are those who taught Ulla’s statement differently to be referencing the laws of the korban pesach, and to make a comparison between the korban pesach and edim Zomemin as both being prohibitions that don’t involve actions and therefore don’t receive malkus. Therefore Ulla would say that just as one who defames his wife is doing a prohibition with no real action and yet receives lashes, so too one receives lashes for any prohibition that doesn’t involve an action.

The Gemara refutes this comparison again because one who defames his wife clearly has a prohibition of unusual severity.  Ultimately, although neither have the same nature of stringency as the other, the common characteristic between them is that they are both prohibitions with no action. This is questioned, but again defended.

Back to the analyzing Mishnah: The Gemara asks what the Rabbis derive from the verse “and you shall not bear false witness,” to which the Gemara responds that they needed it as a basic warning to Zomemin witnesses. In which case, where does R’ Meir learn the warning to Zomemin witnesses? To which the Gemara answers, from the verse, “All who remain shall hear and fear…” The Rabbi’s, on the other hand, needed that verse for the principle of proclamation.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Question to Consider: We learned last year about the concept of Kim Leih B’drabah Mineih, which teaches us that if a person does one act that incurs two penalties, you only get the harsher punishment. Why wasn’t this rule brought up as proof for the Rabbi’s view that the Edim Zomemin only get one punishment but not two (pay but not lashes)? Additionally, how could R’ Meir say what he said, that the Edim Zomemin get both penalties, if Kim Leih applies?