בבא בתרא צז

בבא בתרא צז

הַמְתַמֵּד, וְנָתַן מַיִם בְּמִדָּה, וּמָצָא כְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּיב. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בִּכְדֵי מִדָּתוֹ, אֲבָל בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ – לָא פְּלִיגִי!

In the case of one who produces tamad, a beverage made by steeping grape pomace in water, and he placed a measured amount of water into a container together with the pomace, and after removing the pomace he found that the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used, one is exempt from the requirement to tithe the tamad, even though the pomace came from grapes that had not been tithed. And Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable to tithe the tamad. The Gemara explains the difficulty posed by this mishna: It would appear that they disagree only with regard to a case where the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used, but in a case where the volume of the tamad produced was greater than the amount of water used, they do not disagree; rather, they all agree that it must be tithed because it is regarded as wine. This would appear to contradict Rava’s explanation.

הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי מִדָּתוֹ פְּלִיגִי; וְהַאי דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּכְדֵי מִדָּתוֹ, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: Actually, the same is true in that they would disagree even where the volume of the tamad produced was greater than the amount of water used. And the reason that the mishna records only that they disagree about a case where the volume of the tamad produced was equivalent to the amount of water used is in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable to tithe the tamad even in this case.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מֵרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: שְׁמָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם יַיִן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ חַמְרָא הוּא? קִיּוּהָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: If one steeps pomace and produces tamad that has the taste of wine, what is the blessing that one should recite before drinking it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Do you hold that such a beverage is wine? It is merely a sharp-flavored beverage, not wine.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁמָרִים שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אָסוּר, וּשְׁלִישִׁי מוּתָּר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף שְׁלִישִׁי, בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita concerning the production of successive batches of tamad of decreasing strengths by reusing the pomace after each time a tamad is produced: With regard to pomace of teruma wine, the first and second products are considered to be teruma, and it is prohibited for a non-priest to drink it. But with regard to the third product, a non-priest is permitted to drink it. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the third product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it is forbidden to a non-priest.

וְשֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר – רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר, שֵׁנִי מוּתָּר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף שֵׁנִי, בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְשֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – שְׁלִישִׁי אָסוּר, וּרְבִיעִי מוּתָּר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף רְבִיעִי, בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

The baraita continues: And with regard to water added to pomace of second-tithe wine, the first product is also considered to be second tithe, and it is prohibited to drink it outside Jerusalem. But with regard to the second product, it is permitted to drink it anywhere. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the second product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it may be consumed only in Jerusalem. And with regard to water added to pomace of wine that was consecrated to the Temple, up to the third product it is prohibited to derive any benefit from it, as it is considered to be consecrated, but from the fourth product, it is permitted. Rabbi Meir says: Even with regard to the fourth product, if the wine that seeps out of the pomace imparts the flavor of wine to the water, it is prohibited.

וּרְמִינְהִי: שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ – לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר, וְשֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר – לְעוֹלָם מוּתָּר. קַשְׁיָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, קַשְׁיָא מַעֲשֵׂר אַמַּעֲשֵׂר!

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita: Tamad produced from the pomace of wine that was consecrated to the Temple is always forbidden, even after having steeped them many times, and the beverage produced from pomace of second tithe is always permitted, even from the first such product. The Gemara explains: The ruling concerning consecrated pomace is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling of the first baraita concerning consecrated pomace. And the ruling concerning second-tithe pomace is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling of the first baraita concerning second-tithe pomace.

הֶקְדֵּשׁ אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, כָּאן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים. מַעֲשֵׂר אַמַּעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וַדַּאי, כָּאן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר דְּמַאי.

The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling of one baraita concerning consecrated pomace and the ruling of the other baraita concerning consecrated pomace is not difficult, as one can explain that here, the second baraita is referring to pomace with inherent sanctity, and there, the first baraita is referring to pomace with sanctity that inheres in its value. Also, the contradiction between the ruling of one baraita concerning pomace of second tithe and the ruling of the other baraita concerning pomace of second tithe is not difficult, as one can explain that here, the first baraita is referring to pomace whose status as second tithe is certain and there, the second baraita is referring to pomace of second tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai].

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְעִנְיַן אִיסּוּרָן, כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לְעִנְיַן הֶכְשֵׁירָן.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: In the same way in which the Sages said concerning differing strengths of tamad that with regard to their prohibition, after a certain number of times the tamad produced is not considered to be wine, so too they said the same rulings with regard to their capacity to render foods susceptible to ritual impurity.

הֶכְשֵׁירָן דְּמַאי? אִי דְּמַיָּא – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי! אִי דְּחַמְרָא – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים.

The Gemara asks: When the baraita is referring to their capacity to render other foods susceptible to ritual impurity, why does it matter which kind of beverage the tamad is considered to be? Whether the tamad is regarded as water it can render food susceptible to impurity, or whether it is regarded as wine it can render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara clarifies: No, it is necessary in a case in which one produced tamad with rainwater that he had not previously intended to use. Rainwater does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity, so the tamad will do so only if it is regarded as wine.

וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי לְהוּ לְמָנָא – אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּתַּמֵּד מֵאֵלָיו.

The Gemara challenges this: But since he took the rainwater and poured it into a container holding the grape pomace, he has thereby intended it for a use. Even if the resulting tamad is regarded as water, such rainwater renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the pomace produced tamad by itself, having been steeped in water that happened to fall upon it.

וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא נָגֵיד – קַמָּא קַמָּא אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּפָרָה שֶׁשּׁוֹתָה רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

The Gemara persists: The baraita above states that from the third product, the tamad is regarded as water, which the Gemara has explained is referring to rainwater that one did not intend to use and that consequently cannot render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara asks: But since he draws off each subsequent lot of tamad that is produced, one by one, in order to allow more rainwater to fall onto the pomace and produce more tamad, he thereby demonstrates his intent to use the rainwater. Therefore, even if the tamad is regarded as water, it should render food susceptible to impurity. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa says that this is a case of a cow that drank the lots of tamad, one by one, and some inadvertently dripped from the cow’s mouth onto food. Since no person intended to use the tamad, if it is regarded as water it will not render food susceptible to impurity.

אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: אֵין אוֹמְרִים קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם, אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן הָרָאוּי לִינָּסֵךְ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

§ Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: One may recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day only over wine of a quality that is fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar.

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ, וְהָא תָּאנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: יַיִן מִגִּתּוֹ לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר; וְכֵיוָן דְּאִם הֵבִיא כָּשֵׁר, אֲנַן אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: This statement is said to exclude what? If we say it is to exclude the use of wine fresh from one’s press, i.e., grape juice, which has not yet fermented, that is difficult. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One may not bring wine fresh from his press as a libation ab initio, but if one brought it as a libation, it is valid after the fact. And since if one brought it as a libation it is valid after the fact, we should also be able to use it for the sanctification of the Shabbat day, even ab initio.

דְּאָמַר רָבָא: סוֹחֵט אָדָם אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל עֲנָבִים, וְאוֹמֵר עָלָיו קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם!

As Rava says: A person may squeeze the juice from a cluster of grapes and then recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day over it.

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי מִפִּיהָ וּמִשּׁוּלֶיהָ? וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִפִּיהָ וּמִשּׁוּלֶיהָ לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר!

Rather, Rav’s statement is to exclude wine that is taken from the mouth of the barrel, which has scum floating in it, and wine taken from the bottom of the barrel, which contains the pomace. The Gemara challenges this: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One may not bring wine that is taken from the mouth of the barrel or from the bottom of the barrel as a libation ab initio, but if one brought it as a libation it is valid after the fact? Accordingly, it should be fit for use for the sanctification of the Shabbat day.

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן כּוּשִׁי; בּוֹרֵק; הֵילִיסְטוֹן; שֶׁל מַרְתֵּף; שֶׁל צִמּוּקִים? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בְּכוּלָּן לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר!

Rather, Rav’s statement is to exclude black wine, borek wine, sweet wine [heiliston], wine from the cellar, and wine made from raisins. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to all of these types of wine, one may not bring them as a libation ab initio, but if one brought one of them as a libation it is valid after the fact. Accordingly, it should be fit for use for the sanctification of the Shabbat day.

וְאֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי יַיִן קוֹסֵס; מָזוּג; מְגוּלֶּה; וְשֶׁל שְׁמָרִים; וְשֶׁרֵיחוֹ רַע – דְּתַנְיָא: בְּכוּלָּן לֹא יָבִיא, וְאִם הֵבִיא – פָּסוּל.

Rather, Rav’s statement serves to exclude souring wine, diluted wine, wine that has been left uncovered, as there is a concern that a snake may have injected its venom into it, and wine made from grape pomace, and wine that has a foul odor. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all of these types of wine, one may not bring them as a libation, and if one brought one of them as a libation, it is disqualified.

לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי קוֹסֵס, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הִיא!

The Gemara asks again: Rav’s statement serves to exclude which of these types of wine? If one suggests Rav intended to exclude souring wine, that cannot be, as the status of wine that tastes like wine but has the odor of vinegar is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (96a).

אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי מָזוּג, עַלּוֹיֵי עַלְּיֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּכוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה, שֶׁאֵין מְבָרְכִין עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם!

If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude diluted wine, why would such wine be disqualified for the sanctification of the Shabbat day? Diluting wine is an improvement of it, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Even though the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that over undiluted wine one recites the blessing: Who created the fruit of the vine, nevertheless the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup used for a blessing, such as the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited, that one does not recite the blessing over it until he adds water to it to make it palatable.

אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי מְגוּלֶּה, סַכָּנָה הִיא!

If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine that has been left uncovered, it would be unnecessary for Rav to teach this, because such wine, which is dangerous to drink, as a snake may have injected its venom into it, is already forbidden.

אִי לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁל שְׁמָרִים, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא אַרְבְּעָה, חַמְרָא מְעַלְּיָא הוּא! אִי דִּרְמָא תְּלָתָא וַאֲתָא תְּלָתָא וּפַלְגָא, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן וַאֲחֵרִים הִיא!

If one suggests that Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine made from pomace, what are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where one poured three jugs of water over the pomace and the volume of the resulting beverage came to four jugs, that is considered full-fledged wine, which may certainly be used for the sanctification of the Shabbat day. If it is referring to where one poured three jugs of water over the pomace, and the resulting beverage came to three and a half jugs, this is the subject of a dispute between the Rabbis and Aḥerim, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who rule that it is not regarded as wine.

אֶלָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁרֵיחוֹ רַע. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי מְגוּלֶּה – וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּעַבְּרֵיהּ בִּמְסַנֶּנֶת כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי – ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״.

Rather, Rav’s statement serves to exclude wine that has a foul odor. And if you wish, say that actually his statement serves to exclude wine that has been left uncovered, and it teaches the novelty that even though one passes it through a sieve, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Terumot 8:7), nevertheless, it still may not be used for the sanctification of the Shabbat day. This is because it is disrespectful to use inferior wine for a mitzva, as derived from the verse in which God rebukes the Jewish people for offering lame animals as offerings: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8).

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא מֵרָבָא: חֲמַר חִוַּורְיָין, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״.

Rav Kahana, father-in-law of Rav Mesharshiyya, asked Rava: With regard to using white wine for libations and for the sanctification of the Shabbat day, what is the halakha? He said to him in response that the verse states: “Do not look upon the wine when it is red, when it gives its color in the cup, when it glides down smoothly” (Proverbs 23:31), which indicates that red wine is considered to be of a superior quality.

קַנְקַנִּים בַּשָּׁרוֹן וְכוּ׳. תָּאנָא: פִּיטָסוֹת נָאוֹת וּמְגוּפָּרוֹת.

§ The mishna teaches: When purchasing jugs of wine in the Sharon region, he accepts upon himself that up to ten inferior-quality jugs may be present in each hundred jugs purchased. It was taught in a baraita: The buyer must accept ten inferior-quality jugs in one hundred only when even those ten inferior-quality jugs are beautiful and sealed with pitch to strengthen them.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר יַיִן לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְהֶחְמִיץ – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. וְאִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּינוֹ מַחְמִיץ – הֲרֵי זֶה מִקָּח טָעוּת. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״יַיִן

MISHNA: If one sells wine to another and then it sours, the seller does not bear financial responsibility for its loss. But if it is known of this seller that his wine always sours, then this sale is a mistaken transaction, i.e., one based upon false assumptions, as the buyer intended to purchase wine that would maintain its quality; therefore, the seller must reimburse the buyer. And if the seller said to the buyer: It is wine