where it has been taught: If one tested1 a [wine] jug for the purpose of taking from it, periodically, heave-offering [for wine kept in other jugs];2 and, subsequently,3 it was found [to contain] vinegar,4 all5 three days It is certain, [and] after that it is doubtful.6 What does this mean? — R. Johanan said, It means this: During the first three days [after the test, it is regarded as] certain wine;7 after that, [as] doubtful.8 What is the reason? — [Because] wine [begins to] deteriorate from above,9 and this [man] had tasted it [and ascertained that] it had not deteriorated; [and] if it be assumed that it had deteriorated [immediately] after it had been tasted, [even then during the first three days], it had the odour of vinegar and the taste of wine, and whenever the odour is of vinegar and the taste is of wine, it is regarded as wine. And R. Joshua b. Levi said: [The meaning of the Baraitha is that] during the last three days10 [it is regarded as] certainly vinegar;11 prior to that, [as] doubtful.12 What is the reason? — Wine [begins to] deteriorate from below, and it is possible [that it had already] deteriorated [during the test] but he did not know.13 [Moreover, even] if it is assumed that deterioration [begins] from the top, [and it will be argued that it must have been wine] since [this man] had tasted it and [ascertained that] it had not [then] deteriorated, [it may be retorted that] it is possible that it deteriorated [immediately] after he tasted it, [and it had] the odour of vinegar and the taste of wine, and [the law is that wherever] the odour is vinegar and the taste. wine, [it is regarded as] vinegar.
The scholars of the South [of Palestine] taught in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: [During the] first [three days it is regarded as] certainly wine.14 [During the] last [three days, as] certainly vinegar. [During the] intervening [days as] doubtful. Is not this self-contradictory? [Since] you said that [during the] first [three days it is regarded as] certainly wine, it is obvious that [if the] odour is vinegar and the taste wine, [it is regarded as] wine;15 and then you say [that during the] last [three days it is regarded as] certainly vinegar, [which] proves clearly [that if the] odour is vinegar and the taste, wine, [it is regarded as] vinegar?16 — [The second clause deals with the case] when it was found [to be] very strong vinegar [in which case it is known] that had it not lost its taste three days [previously], it could not have been found [to be such] very strong vinegar.17
It has been stated: [In the case] when one sold a jug of wine to another and it became sour,20 Rab said: During the first three days [of the sale] it is [regarded as still] in the possession of the seller;21 after that, [it is regarded as] in the possession of the buyer.22
Baba Bathra 96b
and Samuel says: Wine leaps upon the shoulder of its owner.1 R. Joseph decided a case In accordance [with the opinion] of Rab, in [respect of the sale of] beer;2 and in accordance with that of Samuel in [respect of] wine. And the law is in agreement with [the opinion] of Samuel.
Our Rabbis taught: The benediction, '… by whose word everything was made', is to be said over beer of dates, beer of barley and lees of wine. Others say [that] over lees which have the flavour of wine the benediction, '… the creator of the fruit of the wine' is to be said. Both Rabbah and R. Joseph say: The law is not in accordance with [the view of] the others. Raba said: All agree [in the case where] three [jugs of water] had been poured [into the lees], and four came out, that [the liquid] is [regarded as] wine; [for] Raba [is guided] by his view that any wine which cannot stand [an admixture of] three [units of] water to one [of wine], is no wine.3 [In the case also where] three [jugs of water] had been put [into the lees] and three came out, [all agree that it is] no wine. Their dispute4 has reference only [to the case] where three were put in and three and a half came out. [For in such a case,] the Rabbis hold the opinion [that since for the] three [that] were put in three were taken out, [only] one half is over; and one half, in six halves of water is nothing. But the others hold the opinion [that for the] three put in, [only] two and a half5 were taken out, [a complete] jug, [therefore] remains over, and one jug [of wine] in two and a half [of water] [is regarded as] good wine.
But how can it be said that there is a dispute [at all] in the case when more than the quantity put in [has been taken out]? Surely it has been taught:
- To Next Folio -