Bava Batra 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

And this is the storehouse that the Sages taught in our Mishna.

That is, this is the case described by the Mishna, in which the buyer accepts ten kossesot per hundred. For when he said, “of wine,” this was effective in obligating him to provide good wine; and when he said, “this cellar,” this was effective in having the buyer accept ten kossesot per hundred.

And how can you say that the Mishna is speaking of an unspecified wine cellar?!

And we answer:

Rather, the Mishna also

is speaking of a case

where he said to him:

“A cellar”

this.

And we raise a difficulty:

There is a difficulty: “

This”

or “

this.”

For in the first beraita it was stated that with regard to “this cellar,” he may give him wine sold in a shop—that is, all of it may be kossesot—whereas in Rav Zevid’s beraita it was stated that he must give him good wine, apart from ten kossesot per hundred?

And we answer:

There is no difficulty: This is referring to a case where he said to him “

for seasoning,”

meaning that the seller told the buyer that he was selling him wine suitable for flavoring food and adding to a cooked dish—that is, good wine that keeps for a long time, since only a little of it is used at a time.

This is referring to a case where he did not say to him “

for seasoning.”

The Gemara explains: The

beraita of Rav Zevid

is speaking of a case where he said to him: “This cellar of wine

where he said to him “

This cellar of wine

for seasoning,”

and therefore he must give him good wine. Nevertheless, what he also said to him, “this cellar,” was effective in having the buyer accept ten kossesot per hundred.

The first beraita

is speaking of a case where he

did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

but merely said to him: “This cellar of wine.” Therefore, he may give him even wine that is entirely kossesot, provided that it is wine and not vinegar.

The Gemara summarizes the details of the laws:

Therefore,

if he said to him: “

I am selling you a cellar of wine

to you,”

and

he also said to him: “

For seasoning,”

he gives him wine that is entirely good.

This is the first clause of Rav Zevid’s beraita.

If he said to him: “

This cellar of wine

I am selling you,”

and

he also said to him: “

For seasoning,”

he gives him wine that is entirely good, and he has the buyer accept ten kossesot per hundred.

This is the latter clause of Rav Zevid’s beraita.

If he said to him: “

This cellar of wine I am selling you,”

and he did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

he gives him wine sold in a shop.

That is, even if it is entirely kossesot; and this is the middle clause of the first beraita.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If he said to him: “

A cellar of wine,”

but he did not say to him “this,”

and

also

did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

what

is the law? Must all the wine be good, or does the buyer accept ten kossesot per hundred?

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about this:

One said: He accepts

ten kossesot per hundred. This is similar to “this cellar for seasoning,” where there is both an advantage and a deficiency: an advantage, because he said to him “for seasoning,” and a deficiency, because he said to him “this.” Here too there is an advantage, because he said to him “a cellar of wine” without specifying “this,” and a deficiency, because he did not say to him “for seasoning.” Therefore, their laws are equal: he accepts ten kossesot per hundred.

And one said: He does not accept

anything; rather, the seller must give him wine that is entirely good. For although he did not say to him “for seasoning,” ordinarily anyone who purchases wine intends to use it for seasoning and not to sell it in a shop. And since he did not say to him “this cellar,” he must give him wine that is entirely good, as though he had said to him, “A cellar of wine for seasoning.”

The one who says that he accepts derives this from

the beraita

of Rav Zevid,

in accordance with his position.

As it teaches: “

I am selling you a cellar of wine; he gives him wine that is entirely good.”

And we established,

and interpreted the latter clause of that beraita,

as referring to a case where he said to him “

for seasoning.”

And the same applies to the first clause: it is speaking when he said to him “for seasoning.” If so, we infer:

The reason

that he gives him wine that is entirely good is because

he said to him “

for seasoning.”

But if he did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

he accepts

ten kossesot per hundred.

And the one who says that he does not accept derives this from the first beraita

in accordance with his position.

As it teaches: “

I am selling you a cellar of wine; he gives him wine that is entirely good.”

And we established

the middle clause of that beraita

as referring to a case where he did not say to him “

for seasoning.”

And the same applies to the first clause: it is speaking in such a case. If so, it is explicitly clear that even when he did not say “for seasoning,” he must give him wine that is entirely good, because he said to him simply, “A cellar of wine.”

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to the one who derives his position from Rav Zevid, there is a difficulty from the first beraita,

which implies that he does not accept [anything].

And we answer: The first clause of the beraita is not speaking only of the case described in the middle clause; rather, it speaks of two cases, and

the text is incomplete, and this is what it teaches:

“I am selling you a cellar of wine; he gives him wine that is entirely good.”

When are these words stated? When he said to him “

for seasoning.”

But if he did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

he accepts

ten kossesot per hundred.

And

if he said to him:

“This cellar of wine, and he did not say to him” “

for seasoning,”

he gives him wine sold in a shop.

And we raise a difficulty:

But according to the one who derives his position from the beraita, there is a difficulty from Rav Zevid, whom we established as referring to a case where he said to him “

for seasoning,”

and it implies:

if he did not say to him “

for seasoning,”

does he accept [ten kossesot per hundred]?

And we answer: The first clause of Rav Zevid’s beraita is not speaking specifically when he said to him “for seasoning.” Rather,

the same law applies even though he did not say to him “

for seasoning:”

he does not accept,

since he said to him simply, “A cellar of wine.”

And the fact that we established it as referring to a case where he said to him “

for seasoning,”

applies only to the latter clause, where he said to him, “This cellar of wine.”

Because there is a difficulty concerning “

this”

or “

this,”

in order to reconcile the contradiction with the first beraita, in which a different law was stated for the case where he said to him, “This cellar of wine.”

Rav Yehuda said: “Wine sold in a shop,”

that is, the poorest wine among all the wines sold in a shop,

one recites over it: ‘Who creates the fruit of the vine,’

since it is still considered “fruit.”

And Rav Ḥisda said:

Regarding reciting “Who creates the fruit of the vine”

over wine that has “turned,”

wine that has spoiled,

why do I need this?

That is, one should recite over it only: “Everything comes to be through His word.”

He raised an objection

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Over bread that has become moldy, over wine that has turned, and over a cooked dish

[of one of the five species, whose blessing is “Who creates various kinds of nourishment”],

whose form has changed,

having become sour,

one says: “Everything comes to be through His word.”

Since they have spoiled, they have lost the blessing that was originally appropriate for them.

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who says that over wine that has turned one recites “Who creates the fruit of the vine.”

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said: Rav Yehuda concedes with regard to purzema,

wine that is extremely poor and is not sold in a shop,

which is sold at the corners,

meaning that it is sold only at the city’s corners, at crossroads where many people pass and do not concern themselves with the quality of the wine, as they purchase it only for immediate use. And with regard to this wine Rav Yehuda concedes that one recites over it “Everything comes to be through His word”; and the beraita is speaking of this wine.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Here is Rav Yehuda, and here is Rav Ḥisda.

That is, Rav Yehuda and Rav Ḥisda disagree regarding wine that has turned, whether one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the vine” or “Everything comes to be through His word.”

Master, with whose view do you agree?

What is your opinion in this matter?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

I know a baraita.

The matter is resolved by a beraita.