Study Makkot folio 4A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 3 log, and the appearance of those 3 log is like the appearance of wine; and then those 3 log fell into a mikveh, completing its requisite 40 se’a, it did not invalidate
R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance of those 3 log. Therefore, if it has the appearance of wine it does not invalidate the mikveh; if it has the appearance of water it invalidates the mikveh. Perhaps Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that the mixture of water and wine does not in
The Talmud 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 Mishnah. One is that Rav teaches: In a case where there are 3 log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause. But in a case where there are 3 comp
Or perhaps Rav did not teach: In a case where there are 3 log of drawn water less one kortov, in the first clause of the Mishnah; rather, he taught: In a case where there are 3 complete log of water into which a kortov of wine fell. According to this version of the Mishnah, even the first tanna agr
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 R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri?