Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 28, 2017 | 讘壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 96

What blessing do you make on wine that is sold in the stores, i.e. starting to turn to vinegar? 聽There is a debate whether it’s borei聽pri聽hagafen or shehakol. 聽Rav Yosef brings a braita to clarify how we pasken,聽 However, the braita had several interpretations and therefore it was unclear what he meant. 聽If one purchases wine and it goes bad soon after, is the seller responsible to give聽the buyer new wine? 聽What is the halacha regarding wine that was made from the leftover grapes that had already been used for making wine – is it considered wine or not?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讘讜讚拽 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讞讜诪抓 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬讜诐 讜讚讗讬 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

The Gemara clarifies: What is the baraita saying? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 诪注讬诇讗讬 注拽专 讜讛讗讬 讟注讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 注拽专 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘转专 讚讟注讬诪讬讛 注拽专 讛讜讛 专讬讞讗 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讻诇 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 诪转转讗讬 注拽专 讜讗讬诪讜专 注拽专 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪注讬诇讗讬 注拽专 讜讛讗 讟注讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 注拽专 讚诇诪讗 讘转专 讚讟注讬诪讬讛 注拽专 讛讜讛 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗

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.

讚专讜诪讗讬 诪转谞讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 讗诪爪注讬讬诐 住驻拽

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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 讗诇诪讗 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 讗诇诪讗 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗

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.

讻讙讜谉 讚讗砖转讻讞 讞诇讗 住讬驻转拽讗 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注拽专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞 讞诇讗 住讬驻转拽讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 诪专讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讞讚 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬

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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 诇讞讘专讜 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讘专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞

搂 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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞诪专讗 讗讻转驻讗 讚诪讗专讬讛 砖讜讜讗专

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.

注讘讚 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘砖讬讻专讗 讜讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讻专 转诪专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诪专讬 讬讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讟注诐 讬讬谉 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐

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. A岣rim 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 A岣rim.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 讗专讘注讛 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讞诪专讗 讚诇讗 讚专讬 注诇 讞讚 转诇转 诪讬讗 诇讗讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 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.

专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 转诇转讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 转诇转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转诇转讗 注讬讬诇 转诇转讗 谞驻讬拽 驻砖 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讘砖讬转讗 驻诇讙讬 诪讬讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

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鈥檌m 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.

讜讗讞专讬诐 住讘专讬 转诇转讗 注讜诇 转专讬谉 讜驻诇讙讗 谞驻讬拽 驻砖 诇讬讛 讻讜讝讗 讜讻讜讝讗 讘转专讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讞诪专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

And A岣rim 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.

讜讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 诪讚转讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉

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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 5:6):

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 96

讚转谞讬讗 讛讘讜讚拽 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 诇讛讬讜转 诪驻专讬砖 注诇讬讛 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讞讜诪抓 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬讜诐 讜讚讗讬 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

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.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 住驻拽

The Gemara clarifies: What is the baraita saying? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 诪注讬诇讗讬 注拽专 讜讛讗讬 讟注讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 注拽专 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘转专 讚讟注讬诪讬讛 注拽专 讛讜讛 专讬讞讗 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讻诇 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛诇谉 住驻拽

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 诪转转讗讬 注拽专 讜讗讬诪讜专 注拽专 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪注讬诇讗讬 注拽专 讜讛讗 讟注讬诪讬讛 讜诇讗 注拽专 讚诇诪讗 讘转专 讚讟注讬诪讬讛 注拽专 讛讜讛 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗

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.

讚专讜诪讗讬 诪转谞讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 讗诪爪注讬讬诐 住驻拽

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.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讬讬谉 讗诇诪讗 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讞讜诪抓 讗诇诪讗 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讬讛 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗

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.

讻讙讜谉 讚讗砖转讻讞 讞诇讗 住讬驻转拽讗 讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讚注拽专 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞 讞诇讗 住讬驻转拽讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 诪专讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讞讚 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬

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 Yo岣nan, 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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 诇讞讘专讜 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讘专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞

搂 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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讞诪专讗 讗讻转驻讗 讚诪讗专讬讛 砖讜讜讗专

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.

注讘讚 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讜讘讚讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘砖讬讻专讗 讜讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讻专 转诪专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻专 砖注讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诪专讬 讬讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 砖讛讻诇 谞讛讬讛 讘讚讘专讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诪专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讟注诐 讬讬谉 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛谉 讘讜专讗 驻专讬 讛讙驻谉 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐

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. A岣rim 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 A岣rim.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 讗专讘注讛 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讞诪专讗 讚诇讗 讚专讬 注诇 讞讚 转诇转 诪讬讗 诇讗讜 讞诪专讗 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 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.

专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 转诇转讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专诪讗 转诇转讗 讜讗转讗 转诇转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转诇转讗 注讬讬诇 转诇转讗 谞驻讬拽 驻砖 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讘砖讬转讗 驻诇讙讬 诪讬讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

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鈥檌m 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.

讜讗讞专讬诐 住讘专讬 转诇转讗 注讜诇 转专讬谉 讜驻诇讙讗 谞驻讬拽 驻砖 诇讬讛 讻讜讝讗 讜讻讜讝讗 讘转专讬 讜驻诇讙讗 讞诪专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

And A岣rim 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.

讜讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 诪讚转讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉

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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 5:6):

Scroll To Top