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):
