Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 97a

He who, in making Tamad,¹  poured water into lees by measure and obtained the same quantity [of Tamad] is exempt [from the tithe]. And R. Judah makes him liable.²  [Does not this imply that] they are in disagreement only so far as [the case] where only the quantity put in [is extracted], but not where more³  than that quantity [is obtained]? — [No]; they are in disagreement even where more than the quantity put in [has been obtained], and [the reason] why they are in dispute in [the case where only] the quantity put in [has been obtained] is to show you how far-reaching is the view⁴  of R. Judah.⁵

R. Nahman b. Isaac inquired of R. Hiyya b. Abin: What [is the law⁶  in regard to] lees which have the flavour of wine? — He replied unto him: Do you think this is wine? It is a mere acidiferous⁷  liquor.

Our Rabbis taught: [In the case of] lees of Terumah,⁸  the first and the second [infusion] are forbidden [to laymen],⁹  but the third is permitted.¹⁰  R. Meir says: Even the third [infusion is forbidden], when [there is in it enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of [second] tithe, the first [infusion] is forbidden,¹¹  [but] the second is permitted. R. Meir says: The second [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of consecrated [lees], the third [infusion] is forbidden, but the fourth is permitted. R. Meir says: The fourth [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to it].

A contradiction was pointed out [from a Baraitha which states that infusions] of consecrated [things] are forever¹²  forbidden and [those] of [the second] tithe are always¹³  permitted. [Surely this shows] a contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things and also between those relating to tithe! — There is no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things, [for] here [the law relates] to objects which were themselves¹⁴  consecrated, but there [it relates] to objects whose value¹⁵  only was consecrated. There is [also] no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] tithes, [for] here, [the law relates] to that which is certainly tithe, [but] there [it relates] to tithe of Demai.¹⁶

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: The same [laws] that have been said [to apply] in respect of their prohibitions¹⁷  have similarly been said [to apply] in respect of their making objects fit [for Levitical uncleanness].¹⁸  What [kind] of making fit [is meant]? If [the infusion is regarded as consisting] of water, it certainly makes [objects] fit [for the Levitical uncleanness]; [and] if [it is regarded as consisting] of wine it [equally] makes the objects fit. [For what purpose. then, is R. Simeon's statement required?] — It is required in the case where the Tamad¹⁹  was made of rain water.²⁰  But since he took up [the rain water] and poured it into the vessel [containing the lees], he [surely] intended them [for use, and consequently there is again no difference between an infusion of wine and one of water. Why, then, R. Simeon's statement]? — It is required [in the case] where the Tamad was made without the aid of human effort.²¹  But since he draws out [the infusions] one after the other,²²  [does he not, thereby,] reveal his intention [of using them]? — R. papa replied: In [the case²³  of] a cow which drank the [infusions] one after the others [and, consequently, the owner's intention is not known].²⁴

R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab: The Kiddush²⁵  of the day must be proclaimed on such wine only as is fit to be brought as a drink offering upon the altar. What does this exclude? If it is suggested that it excludes wine [that comes] from his vat,²⁶  [it may be retorted]: Did not R. Hiyya teach, 'One must not bring wine from his vat [as a drink offering], but if already brought, it is permitted [to be used]'; and, since [in the case of offerings] it is permitted when brought, it [should be allowed for Kiddush] even at the start also.²⁷

1. [H] an inferior wine, or a vinegar, made by steeping stalks and skins of pressed grapes in water or by pouring water into Iees.
2. Ma'as. V. 6; Pes. 24b; Hul. 25b.
3. In such a case. even the Rabbis (representing the first opinion quoted) would agree that the wine is liable to tithe and, for the same reason, subject to the benediction of proper wine.
4. Lit., 'the power'.
5. I.e., In holding that even when only the quantity put in has been extracted. it is nevertheless subject to tithe.
6. Regarding its benediction.
7. Lit., 'blunts the teeth'.
8. V. Glos.
9. Only priests are allowed to eat Terumah. The first and the second infusion are still regarded as Terumah because they contain a considerable admixture of the original wine.
10. Even though it may still retain some flavour of wine.
11. To be eaten outside Jerusalem.
12. Even the fourth, etc.
13. Even the first.
14. E.g.. wine as a drink offering for the altar.
15. If. e.g.. one has consecrated wine for the purpose that the proceeds from its sale might be used for Temple repairs, the wine must be sold and the proceeds only used. The sanctity of such an object is not as high as that which itself is to be offered on the altar.
16. Heb. [H] (root [H] 'suspect'). Wine or any produce about which there is doubt whether the tithe or any of the priestly, or Levitical gifts has been duly separated. (Produce, e.g.. purchased from an ignorant man, 'am ha-arez.) The law relating to tithes that have been taken from such wine etc., is not as stringent as that relating to tithe taken from produce, wine, etc. about which it is definitely known that no tithe has ever before been taken.
17. That in the case of terumah, e.g., the first and the second infusions but not the third, and in the case of the tithe, the first but not the second, are regarded as the original wine, and are subject to its restrictions.
18. Certain objects such as grain, fruit, etc. are not subject to Levitical uncleanness unless they have been first brought in contact with certain liquids. V. Lev. XI.
19. V. Glos.
20. Which, like other waters, does not fit objects for uncleanness unless used with the owner's desire or consent. Wine, however, always effects fitness for uncleanness whether with, or without the intention or knowledge of the owner.
21. The rainwater fell directly into the lees.
22. Lit., 'first, first'.
23. And for this R. Simeon's statement is required.
24. In such a case there is a difference whether the infusion is regarded as wine effecting fitness for uncleanness or as water and effecting no fitness. If the cow drank the first infusion only, the law will be applicable to the second infusion. If it drank the second, the law is required for the third.
25. ause 'sanctification', applied here to the proclamation of the sanctity of the Sabbath or Festival, which is made on Sabbaths and Festivals over a cup of wine, to which other appropriate benedictions are added.
26. I.e., too new.
27. Kiddush is not as high in importance as Temple offerings.

[Moreover,] Raba said: A man may press out a cluster of grapes¹  and proclaim over it the Kiddush of the day!²  Or, again, [if it is suggested that the object of Rab's statement is] to exclude³  [the wine] at the mouth⁴  [of the jug] and at the bottom,⁵  [it may be retorted]: Did not R. Hiyya teach, 'One must not bring [wine as a drink offering] from [the jug's] mouth or bottom, but if already brought it is permitted [to be used].! And [if it is suggested that the statement] excludes black, white,⁶  sweet,⁷  cellar,⁸  and raisin wine; surely it has been taught⁹  [that] all these must not be brought, but if brought already they are permitted! And [if it is suggested that the statement] excludes wine [which is] pungent, mixed,¹⁰  exposed,¹¹  made of lees, or having an offensive smell as it has been taught [that] in [the case of] all these, one must not bring [them] and even if brought [they remain] unfit, [it may still be retorted], 'to exclude which [of these was this statement made]'? If to exclude pungent wine, [this is surely a matter of] dispute¹²  between R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi. If to exclude mixed wine, surely [when wine is mixed with water] it is improved, for R. Jose b. Hanina said:¹³  The Sages agree with R. Eleazar that in [respect of] the cup of grace after meals no benediction may be said over it until water has been poured into it.¹⁴  If to exclude exposed [wine], surely it is dangerous.¹⁵  If to exclude [wine made] of Iees, [it may be asked], how is this to be understood? If three [jugs of water] were poured in and four [jugs of wine] came out, this [surely] is good wine. If three were poured in, and three and a half came out, this is a [matter of] dispute between the Rabbis and the others!¹⁶  But, [this is the object of the statement], viz., to exclude [wine] which has an offensive smell. If preferred, it may be said that [the statement] may even exclude exposed [wine] and, [as to the objection raised,¹⁷  it may be replied that it excludes such wine] even though it was passed through a strainer¹⁸  in accordance with [the teaching of] R. Nehemiah,¹⁹  [it] nevertheless [may not be used for Kiddush, because] Present it²⁰  now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? Or will he accept thy person?²¹

R. Kahana the father-in-law of R. Mesharshya inquired of Raba: May white²²  wine [be used as a drink-offering]? — He replied unto him: Look not thou upon the wine when it is red.²³

JUGS IN SHARON etc.. It has been taught: [The bad jugs referred to in our Mishnah are those which are] thin²⁴  and lined with pitch.²⁵

MISHNAH. IF ONE SELLS WINE TO ANOTHER AND IT TURNS SOUR. HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.²⁶  BUT IF HIS WINE IS KNOWN TO TURN SOUR, THE PURCHASE IS ONE BASED ON ERROR.²⁷  IF HE SAID UNTO HIM. 'WINE

1. And this certainly is not better than wine from the vat.
2. This clearly shows that wine from the vat may be used for Kiddush, even at the start.
3. From eligibility for Kiddush.
4. On account of the mould that usually gathers near the top.
5. On account of the lees there, which gets mixed up with it.
6. [H] 'shining'. effervescent. Others read [H] 'searching' (in the body), causing diarrhoea.
7. [G] a very weak wine.
8. Promiscuous wine, not tested.
9. Men. 86a.
10. With water.
11. Wine that remained uncovered during the night must not be used, for fear lest a poisonous snake may have drunk from it.
12. Whether it is considered wine or vinegar. V, supra 96a.
13. Ber. 50b.
14. Their wines were so strong that they could not be drunk without water; three parts of water to one of wine.
15. And must not be used even for ordinary purposes.
16. Supra 96b.
17. Supra, that such wine is dangerous and must not be used even for ordinary drinking.
18. Or 'filter', in which case there is no more danger in drinking it.
19. Suk. 50b; B.K. 115b. The poison of the snake, he states, floats, and may be removed from the liquid with the aid of a strainer.
20. I.e., the blind, the lame and the sick, mentioned by the prophet in the earlier part of the verse.
21. Mal. 1, 8. As those objectionable offerings (v. previous note) were condemned by the prophet, so is the use of any objectionable thing in connection with divine service (such, e.g.. as Kiddush) also to be condemned.
22. V. p. 405, n. 8.
23. Prov. XXIII, 31. This implies that proper wine must be red. Hence, only red wine may be used for drink-offerings.
24. [H] (from [H] 'slender', 'fine'). Others render [H] 'half-baked'. (Cf. [H] in Ex. XII, 9.)
25. If, however, they were in a worse condition the buyer need not accept them at all.
26. Since at the time of the sale the wine was in a good condition.
27. Because the seller ought to have informed the buyer that his wine could not stand, V. p. 408, n. 2.