Makkos Daf 4 מאקוס דַף 4

Rav said that three lugin of drawn water, into which a mere קורטוב of wine fell, ומראיהן כמראה יין – and its color is the color of wine, would not disqualify a mikveh with less than forty se’ah, because it is not considered water, but diluted wine. A Baraisa teaches that it does disqualify a mikveh, and Rava answers that this is a machlokes Tannaim: a Mishnah states that if three lugin of water, minus a קורטוב, was completed with a קורטוב of wine or milk, it does not disqualify a mikveh, implying that three full lugin of water do disqualify it, even if it is wine-colored. Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri says: הכל הולך אחר המראה – everything follows the color. Thus, three lugin which includes milk would disqualify, and even three full lugin which are wine-colored would not disqualify, like Rav’s opinion. Rav Pappa was uncertain between this interpretation and another, which is held by Rav Yosef. In the second interpretation, the Tanna Kamma requires both three full lugin of water and the appearance of water to disqualify (and Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri only argues regarding milk which completes three lugin). If so, Rav agrees with both Tannaim.

The next Mishnah states that if עדים testify someone owes two hundred zuz, and they were found zomemin, Rebbe Meir says: לוקין ומשלמין – they receive malkus for testifying falsely, and pay the money they accused the victim of owing, שלא השם המביאן לידי מכות מביאן לידי תשלומין – because the passuk which obligates them in malkus is not the same as the one obligating them in payment (the malkus is for violating "לא תענה" – do not bear false testimony, and the payment is from "כאשר זמם"). The Chochomim say: כל המשלם אינו לוקה – whoever pays does not receive malkus, and cannot receive two punishments. This is derived from "כדי רשעתו" – according to his wickedness, teaching that you can punish someone for one “wickedness,” ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות – but you cannot obligate him for two wickednesses (i.e., two punishments for one act). Ulla says that Rebbe Meir derives from the case of מוציא שם רע, where the husband is punished with both payment and malkus, that one can be punished with both payment and malkus (although מוציא שם רע is a קנס, he holds עדים זוממין is as well).

The Torah says that if one violates the prohibition to leave over korban pesach meat until morning, it must be burned in fire. Rebbe Yehudah says the mitzvas עשה was given after the לא תעשה to say he does not receive malkus, but instead fulfills the עשה. Rebbe [Yaakov] says the reason is that it is a לאו שאין בו מעשה – negative prohibition with no action (rather, merely passively not eating), and a לאו שאין בו מעשה does not incur malkus. This implies that Rebbe Yehudah holds a לאו שאין מעשה does incur malkus, and Ulla explains that he derives it from מוציא שם רע, whose transgression lacks a (physical) action, yet incurs malkus. The Gemara objects that an ordinary לאו cannot be derived from מוציא שם רע, which has the unique stringency of לוקה ומשלם – that he receives malkus and also pays!? Reish Lakish says he derives it from עדים זוממין, who receive malkus with merely speech, but the Gemara objects that they have a unique stringency, שכן אין צריכין התראה – that they do not require a prior warning to be punished!? It concludes that he derives it from a צד השוה – common characteristic between the two.