Search

Bava Batra 96

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00



Summary

Rav Yosef brings a braita to clarify whether we hold that wine that is turning to vinegar one should say borei pri hagafen or shehakol. However, the braita had several interpretations and it was therefore unclear which opinion Rav Yosef was trying to prove from the braita.

If one purchases wine and it goes bad soon after, is the seller responsible to give the buyer new wine?

What is the halakha regarding wine that was made from the leftover grapes that had already been used for making wine – is it considered wine or not?

Bava Batra 96

דְּתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵק אֶת הֶחָבִית לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת חוֹמֶץ; כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹם – וַדַּאי, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – סָפֵק.

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): With regard to one who inspects a barrel to see if it still contains enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it to exempt other untithed wine he has, until all the wine in that barrel would be teruma and would be given to a priest, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then all three days after he had last inspected it, it is definitely viewed as having been wine, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed. From that point onward, more than three days after the previous inspection, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is not tithed.

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – וַדַּאי יַיִן, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – סָפֵק.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the baraita saying? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this is what it is saying: For all of the first three days following the inspection, it is definitely viewed as having been wine that had not yet turned to vinegar. From that point onward, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar. Accordingly, any wine for which teruma was separated after those three days by means of designating the contents of that barrel as teruma has an uncertain status.

מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְרָא – מֵעִילַּאי עָקַר, וְהַאי טַעֲימֵיהּ וְלָא עֲקַר. אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: בָּתַר דְּטַעֲימֵיהּ עֲקַר; הָוֵה רֵיחָא חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא, וְכֹל רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַמְרָא.

What is the reason? The process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the top of the barrel; and it is that wine which he tasted when he inspected it, and at that time it had not yet soured. And even if you say that immediately after he tasted it the wine began to sour, during the following three days it would have the odor of vinegar and its taste would be of wine, and anything that has an odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine is regarded as wine.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים – וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ. מִכָּאן וּלְהַלָּן – סָפֵק.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that there is a different interpretation of the baraita: For all of the last three days preceding the discovery that the wine had turned into vinegar, it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar. From that point and earlier, until the time it had been inspected, it is uncertain whether or not it was wine or vinegar.

מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְרָא מִתַּתַּאי עָקַר, וְאֵימוֹר עֲקַר וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מֵעִילַּאי עָקַר, וְהָא טַעֲימֵיהּ וְלָא עֲקַר; דִּלְמָא בָּתַר דְּטַעֲימֵיהּ עֲקַר – הָוֵה רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא, וְרֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַלָּא.

What is the reason? The process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the bottom of the barrel, and therefore, since the inspection was limited to the wine at the top of the barrel, it is possible to say that wine at the bottom had already started to sour and one was unaware of it. Consequently, it is possible that on the day he tasted it the wine turned entirely into vinegar. And even if you say that the process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the top of the barrel, and it is that wine that he tasted when he inspected it and at that time it had not yet soured, perhaps immediately after he tasted it the wine began to sour, in which case its odor would be of vinegar and its taste of wine, and anything that has an odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine is regarded as vinegar.

דָּרוֹמָאֵי מַתְנוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: רִאשׁוֹנִים – וַדַּאי יַיִן, אַחֲרוֹנִים – וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ, אֶמְצָעִיִּים – סָפֵק.

The Sages of the South taught another interpretation of the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For the first three days it is definitely viewed as having been wine. For the last three days it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar. The status of the wine during the intervening period is uncertain.

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ: רִאשׁוֹנִים וַדַּאי יַיִן, אַלְמָא רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַמְרָא; וַהֲדַר אָמְרַתְּ: אַחֲרוֹנִים וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ, אַלְמָא רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַלָּא!

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as, since you said that for the first three days it is definitely viewed as having been wine; apparently, if it has the odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine it is regarded as wine. But then you said that for the last three days it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar; apparently, if it has the odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine it is regarded as vinegar, as it can be established only that the odor had changed three days ago.

כְּגוֹן דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח חַלָּא סִיפְתְּקָא, דְּאִי לָאו דַּעֲקַר תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי – לָא הֲוָה מִשְׁתְּכַח חַלָּא סִיפְתְּקָא.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: The Sages of the South hold that as long as the wine still tastes like wine, it is regarded as wine. When they said that when a barrel is found to contain vinegar it is certain that the wine had already turned into vinegar three days previously, they were referring to a case where the barrel was found to contain strong vinegar, as, had it not already soured three days previously, the barrel would not have been found to contain strong vinegar; rather, it would contain only mild vinegar.

כְּמַאן פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב מָרִי וְרַב זְבִיד; חַד אָמַר: כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי.

Rav Yosef claimed that this baraita can serve as proof with regard to which blessing is recited over wine that has the odor of vinegar but tastes like wine. Having cited three different interpretations of the baraita, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose interpretation did Rav Yosef resolve the question of which blessing to recite? Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree about it. One said that Rav Yosef resolved it in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that this liquid is regarded as wine and the blessing for wine should be recited over it. And one said that Rav Yosef resolved it in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that the liquid is regarded as vinegar and the generic blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, should be recited over it. There is no definitive resolution of the dispute.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר חָבִית יַיִן לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהֶחְמִיצָה – אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ בִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ.

§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who sells a barrel of wine to another, and following the sale it turned to vinegar. Rav said: If it soured during any of the first three days following the sale, it is presumed that it had already began to sour in the domain of the seller, and he bears financial responsibility for it; from that point onward, it is presumed that the wine soured in the domain of the buyer, and it is his loss.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חַמְרָא – אַכַּתְפָּא דְּמָארֵיהּ שָׁוַואר.

And Shmuel said: Even if the wine sours shortly after the purchase, the seller does not bear responsibility, as the wine is agitated as it is carried upon the shoulders of its new owner, causing it to sour quickly.

עֲבַד רַב יוֹסֵף עוֹבָדָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּשִׁיכְרָא, וּכְווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּחַמְרָא. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

Rav Yosef ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rav, in which beer spoiled shortly after it was sold, and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in a similar case involving wine. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד שֵׁכַר תְּמָרִים, וְאֶחָד שֵׁכַר שְׂעוֹרִים, וְאֶחָד שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן – מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶם ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁמָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם טַעַם יַיִן, מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן״. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Whether one drinks date beer, or barley beer, or a beverage made from soaking pomace from the production of wine in water, known as tamad, one recites over them the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Aḥerim say: Over wine made from pomace that has the taste of wine one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the vine. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, רְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא אַרְבְּעָה – חַמְרָא הוּא. רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל חַמְרָא דְּלָא דָרֵי עַל חַד תְּלָת מַיָּא – לָאו חַמְרָא הוּא.

Rava said: According to the opinions of everyone mentioned in the baraita, if one poured three jugs of water over grape pomace and then, after removing the pomace, the volume of the resulting beverage came to four jugs, then that beverage is regarded as wine. Evidently, a quarter of the resulting beverage is from juice that was contained in the pomace, which is pure wine, and that is a sufficient ratio for the beverage as a whole to be regarded as wine. The Gemara interjects Rava’s comments: With this statement, Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava said: Any wine that does not contain three parts water to one part pure wine is not regarded as wine, as it is excessively strong.

רְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא, וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא וּפַלְגָא – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: תְּלָתָא עָיֵיל תְּלָתָא נָפֵיק, פָּשׁ לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא – וּפַלְגָא בְּשִׁיתָּא פַּלְגֵי מַיָּא, וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא;

Rava continues: If one poured three jugs of water over pomace, and the volume of the resulting beverage still came to three jugs, then it is nothing, i.e., it is not regarded as wine. When the tanna’im in the baraita disagree is in a case where one poured three jugs of water over pomace and the volume of the resulting beverage came to three and a half jugs, as the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, hold that three jugs of water were absorbed into the pomace and then the same three jugs of water seeped out of the pomace; therefore, there remains half a jug of the resulting beverage that was originally pure wine contained in the pomace. But half a jug of pure wine mixed into six half-jugs of water is nothing, i.e., the mixture is too weak to be regarded as wine.

וַאֲחֵרִים סָבְרִי: תְּלָתָא עוּל, תְּרֵין וּפַלְגָא נָפֵיק, פָּשׁ לֵיהּ כּוּזָא; וְכוּזָא בִּתְרֵי וּפַלְגָא חַמְרָא, מְעַלְּיָא הוּא.

And Aḥerim hold that three jugs of water were absorbed into the pomace but only two and a half jugs of water seeped out of the pomace, as one jug of water replaced the one jug of pure wine contained in the pomace. Therefore, there remains one jug of the resulting beverage that is pure wine that was previously contained in the pomace. And one jug of pure wine mixed into two and a half jugs of water is regarded as full-fledged wine.

וּבְיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ, מִי פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא תְּנַן:

The Gemara asks: And where the volume of the resulting beverage is greater than the amount of water that was poured over the pomace, do the Sages ever disagree? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6):

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.

Rebecca Stulberg
Rebecca Stulberg

Ottawa, Canada

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you

Sandrine Simons
Sandrine Simons

Atlanta, United States

I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!

Lori Stark
Lori Stark

Highland Park, United States

I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.

Miriam Pollack
Miriam Pollack

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)

Barbara-Goldschlag
Barbara Goldschlag

Silver Spring, MD, United States

I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.

Meira Shapiro
Meira Shapiro

NJ, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.

Medinah Korn
Medinah Korn

בית שמש, Israel

“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
Deborah Aschheim

New York, United States

It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.

Janice Block
Janice Block

Beit Shemesh, Israel

After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.

Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Caroline Graham-Ofstein

Bet Shemesh, Israel

I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!

Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Debbie Engelen-Eigles

Minnesota, United States

Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .

Goldie Gilad
Goldie Gilad

Kfar Saba, Israel

When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.

Shoshana Shinnar
Shoshana Shinnar

Jerusalem, Israel

After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.

Janine Rubens
Janine Rubens

Virginia, United States

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach
Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Deborah Hoffman-Wade

Richmond, CA, United States

I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!

Joséphine Altzman
Joséphine Altzman

Teaneck, United States

A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Debbie Fitzerman

Ontario, Canada

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

Bava Batra 96

דְּתַנְיָא: הַבּוֹדֵק אֶת הֶחָבִית לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וְהוֹלֵךְ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת חוֹמֶץ; כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹם – וַדַּאי, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – סָפֵק.

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:8): With regard to one who inspects a barrel to see if it still contains enough wine to continually mentally separate teruma from it to exempt other untithed wine he has, until all the wine in that barrel would be teruma and would be given to a priest, and afterward the contents of the barrel were found to have turned to vinegar, which cannot be set aside as teruma for untithed wine, then all three days after he had last inspected it, it is definitely viewed as having been wine, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is tithed. From that point onward, more than three days after the previous inspection, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar, and any wine for which teruma was separated during those days is not tithed.

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – וַדַּאי יַיִן, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – סָפֵק.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the baraita saying? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this is what it is saying: For all of the first three days following the inspection, it is definitely viewed as having been wine that had not yet turned to vinegar. From that point onward, it is uncertain as to whether it had already turned to vinegar. Accordingly, any wine for which teruma was separated after those three days by means of designating the contents of that barrel as teruma has an uncertain status.

מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְרָא – מֵעִילַּאי עָקַר, וְהַאי טַעֲימֵיהּ וְלָא עֲקַר. אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: בָּתַר דְּטַעֲימֵיהּ עֲקַר; הָוֵה רֵיחָא חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא, וְכֹל רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַמְרָא.

What is the reason? The process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the top of the barrel; and it is that wine which he tasted when he inspected it, and at that time it had not yet soured. And even if you say that immediately after he tasted it the wine began to sour, during the following three days it would have the odor of vinegar and its taste would be of wine, and anything that has an odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine is regarded as wine.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים – וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ. מִכָּאן וּלְהַלָּן – סָפֵק.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that there is a different interpretation of the baraita: For all of the last three days preceding the discovery that the wine had turned into vinegar, it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar. From that point and earlier, until the time it had been inspected, it is uncertain whether or not it was wine or vinegar.

מַאי טַעְמָא? חַמְרָא מִתַּתַּאי עָקַר, וְאֵימוֹר עֲקַר וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מֵעִילַּאי עָקַר, וְהָא טַעֲימֵיהּ וְלָא עֲקַר; דִּלְמָא בָּתַר דְּטַעֲימֵיהּ עֲקַר – הָוֵה רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא, וְרֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַלָּא.

What is the reason? The process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the bottom of the barrel, and therefore, since the inspection was limited to the wine at the top of the barrel, it is possible to say that wine at the bottom had already started to sour and one was unaware of it. Consequently, it is possible that on the day he tasted it the wine turned entirely into vinegar. And even if you say that the process in which wine turns sour and becomes vinegar starts with the wine at the top of the barrel, and it is that wine that he tasted when he inspected it and at that time it had not yet soured, perhaps immediately after he tasted it the wine began to sour, in which case its odor would be of vinegar and its taste of wine, and anything that has an odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine is regarded as vinegar.

דָּרוֹמָאֵי מַתְנוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: רִאשׁוֹנִים – וַדַּאי יַיִן, אַחֲרוֹנִים – וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ, אֶמְצָעִיִּים – סָפֵק.

The Sages of the South taught another interpretation of the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: For the first three days it is definitely viewed as having been wine. For the last three days it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar. The status of the wine during the intervening period is uncertain.

הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא – אָמְרַתְּ: רִאשׁוֹנִים וַדַּאי יַיִן, אַלְמָא רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַמְרָא; וַהֲדַר אָמְרַתְּ: אַחֲרוֹנִים וַדַּאי חוֹמֶץ, אַלְמָא רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמֵיהּ חַמְרָא – חַלָּא!

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, as, since you said that for the first three days it is definitely viewed as having been wine; apparently, if it has the odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine it is regarded as wine. But then you said that for the last three days it is definitely viewed as having been vinegar; apparently, if it has the odor of vinegar but its taste is of wine it is regarded as vinegar, as it can be established only that the odor had changed three days ago.

כְּגוֹן דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח חַלָּא סִיפְתְּקָא, דְּאִי לָאו דַּעֲקַר תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי – לָא הֲוָה מִשְׁתְּכַח חַלָּא סִיפְתְּקָא.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: The Sages of the South hold that as long as the wine still tastes like wine, it is regarded as wine. When they said that when a barrel is found to contain vinegar it is certain that the wine had already turned into vinegar three days previously, they were referring to a case where the barrel was found to contain strong vinegar, as, had it not already soured three days previously, the barrel would not have been found to contain strong vinegar; rather, it would contain only mild vinegar.

כְּמַאן פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב מָרִי וְרַב זְבִיד; חַד אָמַר: כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי.

Rav Yosef claimed that this baraita can serve as proof with regard to which blessing is recited over wine that has the odor of vinegar but tastes like wine. Having cited three different interpretations of the baraita, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose interpretation did Rav Yosef resolve the question of which blessing to recite? Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree about it. One said that Rav Yosef resolved it in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that this liquid is regarded as wine and the blessing for wine should be recited over it. And one said that Rav Yosef resolved it in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that the liquid is regarded as vinegar and the generic blessing: By Whose word all things came to be, should be recited over it. There is no definitive resolution of the dispute.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר חָבִית יַיִן לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהֶחְמִיצָה – אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ בִּרְשׁוּת לוֹקֵחַ.

§ An amoraic dispute was stated with regard to one who sells a barrel of wine to another, and following the sale it turned to vinegar. Rav said: If it soured during any of the first three days following the sale, it is presumed that it had already began to sour in the domain of the seller, and he bears financial responsibility for it; from that point onward, it is presumed that the wine soured in the domain of the buyer, and it is his loss.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חַמְרָא – אַכַּתְפָּא דְּמָארֵיהּ שָׁוַואר.

And Shmuel said: Even if the wine sours shortly after the purchase, the seller does not bear responsibility, as the wine is agitated as it is carried upon the shoulders of its new owner, causing it to sour quickly.

עֲבַד רַב יוֹסֵף עוֹבָדָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּשִׁיכְרָא, וּכְווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּחַמְרָא. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

Rav Yosef ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rav, in which beer spoiled shortly after it was sold, and in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel in a similar case involving wine. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד שֵׁכַר תְּמָרִים, וְאֶחָד שֵׁכַר שְׂעוֹרִים, וְאֶחָד שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן – מְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶם ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁמָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם טַעַם יַיִן, מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן״. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Whether one drinks date beer, or barley beer, or a beverage made from soaking pomace from the production of wine in water, known as tamad, one recites over them the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. Aḥerim say: Over wine made from pomace that has the taste of wine one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the vine. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, רְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא אַרְבְּעָה – חַמְרָא הוּא. רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל חַמְרָא דְּלָא דָרֵי עַל חַד תְּלָת מַיָּא – לָאו חַמְרָא הוּא.

Rava said: According to the opinions of everyone mentioned in the baraita, if one poured three jugs of water over grape pomace and then, after removing the pomace, the volume of the resulting beverage came to four jugs, then that beverage is regarded as wine. Evidently, a quarter of the resulting beverage is from juice that was contained in the pomace, which is pure wine, and that is a sufficient ratio for the beverage as a whole to be regarded as wine. The Gemara interjects Rava’s comments: With this statement, Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rava said: Any wine that does not contain three parts water to one part pure wine is not regarded as wine, as it is excessively strong.

רְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא, וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא וּפַלְגָא – דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: תְּלָתָא עָיֵיל תְּלָתָא נָפֵיק, פָּשׁ לֵיהּ פַּלְגָא – וּפַלְגָא בְּשִׁיתָּא פַּלְגֵי מַיָּא, וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא;

Rava continues: If one poured three jugs of water over pomace, and the volume of the resulting beverage still came to three jugs, then it is nothing, i.e., it is not regarded as wine. When the tanna’im in the baraita disagree is in a case where one poured three jugs of water over pomace and the volume of the resulting beverage came to three and a half jugs, as the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, hold that three jugs of water were absorbed into the pomace and then the same three jugs of water seeped out of the pomace; therefore, there remains half a jug of the resulting beverage that was originally pure wine contained in the pomace. But half a jug of pure wine mixed into six half-jugs of water is nothing, i.e., the mixture is too weak to be regarded as wine.

וַאֲחֵרִים סָבְרִי: תְּלָתָא עוּל, תְּרֵין וּפַלְגָא נָפֵיק, פָּשׁ לֵיהּ כּוּזָא; וְכוּזָא בִּתְרֵי וּפַלְגָא חַמְרָא, מְעַלְּיָא הוּא.

And Aḥerim hold that three jugs of water were absorbed into the pomace but only two and a half jugs of water seeped out of the pomace, as one jug of water replaced the one jug of pure wine contained in the pomace. Therefore, there remains one jug of the resulting beverage that is pure wine that was previously contained in the pomace. And one jug of pure wine mixed into two and a half jugs of water is regarded as full-fledged wine.

וּבְיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ, מִי פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא תְּנַן:

The Gemara asks: And where the volume of the resulting beverage is greater than the amount of water that was poured over the pomace, do the Sages ever disagree? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6):

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete