Bava Batra 97a (צז.) — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn

in tractate Ma'asrot:

One who makes temed,

one who makes temed from wine sediment,

and measures out water

onto sediment that came from wine from which tithes had not been taken,

and

after some time

finds only the measure that he had added,

meaning that the temed has not increased beyond the amount of water he added, it is

exempt

from tithe, because its status is that of water; and even if it has the taste of wine, since nothing additional has been produced from the sediment.

And Rabbi Yehuda obligates

one to tithe this temed, because its status is that of wine, since it has the taste and appearance of wine.

The Gemara proves:

The Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disagree

only

when

he finds in the temed

only the measure

of water that he added.

But when it is more than the measure,

if even a little has been added to the water he put in,

they do not disagree.

The Sages, too, would agree that it is obligated in tithe, because its status is that of wine. If so, the same law should apply: the Sages would agree that one recites over it, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” How, then, can you say that the Sages and others disagree when the water in the temed has increased?

And we answer: In fact,

the same law applies: they disagree even when it is more than the measure that he added.

The Sages hold that it has the status of wine only if the addition amounts to one cup for every three cups of water.

And the reason they disagree when only the measure that he added is found is to convey the force of Rabbi Yehuda,

that even when nothing at all has been added to the measure of water that he put in, its status is nevertheless that of wine.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: What is the halakha with regard to sediment that has the taste of wine?

Do we recite “Who creates the fruit of the vine” over it?

He said to him: Do you think it is wine? It is merely a sharpness!

The taste is only because the sharpness of the sediment has entered it, and not because it is wine. Therefore, one recites over it only “Who creates everything by His word.”

The Sages taught: With regard to sediment of teruma,

onto which one put water and then removed it, and again put other water onto it, and did so several times:

the first and second

waters, the first and second waters,

are prohibited.

Their status is that of teruma, since they are wine, and they are prohibited to one who is not a kohen.

And the third,

the third waters,

is permitted.

The status of teruma does not apply to them, since they are merely water, even if they have the taste of wine.

Rabbi Meir says: Even the third

is prohibited if it is

of a taste-imparting quantity,

meaning that it still contains the taste of wine.

And

the sediment of

second tithe:

the

first is prohibited

to drink outside the walls of Jerusalem, in accordance with the law of second tithe. And the

second is permitted,

as the law of second tithe does not apply to it.

Rabbi Meir says: Even the second

is prohibited if it is

of a taste-imparting quantity.

And

the sediment

of consecrated property—

the third is prohibited, and the fourth is permitted.

Rabbi Meir says: Even the fourth

is prohibited if it is

of a taste-imparting quantity.

And we raise a contradiction

from that which was taught in a baraita: Sediment

of consecrated property is always prohibited.

Even if he replaced the water many times.

And that of second tithe

tithe

is always permitted,

even the first waters.

The case of consecrated property contradicts the case of consecrated property.

For in the first baraita it was stated that consecrated property is not prohibited forever, but only the third or fourth waters.

The case of second tithe contradicts the case of second tithe.

For in the first baraita it was stated that the first or second waters are prohibited with regard to second tithe, whereas here it was stated that they are always permitted.

And we answer:

The case of consecrated property does not contradict the case of consecrated property:

Here,

the second baraita, the sediment came from wine that had been consecrated

with intrinsic sanctity,

as it had been consecrated for libations to be poured upon the altar. This is a stringent sanctity, and therefore it remains prohibited forever.

Here,

the first baraita, the wine had only

sanctity of value,

as one consecrated a barrel of wine for the Temple maintenance, intending that it be sold and that the proceeds be used for the needs of the Temple maintenance. This sanctity is less stringent, and therefore it does not remain prohibited forever.

The case of second tithe does not contradict the case of second tithe either:

Here,

the first baraita speaks

of definite second tithe.

Therefore, even the first or second waters are prohibited.

Here,

the second baraita speaks

of doubtfully tithed produce,

as the wine from which the tithe had been separated was not definite tevel but doubtfully tithed produce, having been purchased from an am ha-aretz suspected of failing to tithe. The Sages were lenient in this matter because most ammei ha-aretz do tithe. Therefore, the water placed on this sediment is always permitted.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Just as they said with regard to its prohibition,

that with regard to teruma the first and second waters are considered wine and are prohibited, while the third waters are considered water and are permitted; and with regard to second tithe, only the first is prohibited [according to the first tanna],

so they said with regard to its capacity to render susceptible.

The first and second waters of teruma are considered wine and render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity [as wine is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity], and so do the first waters of second tithe. But the third waters of teruma and the second waters of second tithe are not considered wine and do not render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. And we ask:

Its capacity to render susceptible—

doubtfully tithed produce?

What capacity to render susceptible is under discussion? If it is with regard to contracting ritual impurity, there is no difference whether it is water or wine, for whether

it is water,

if it is water,

it renders susceptible,

it renders the food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity; and whether

it is wine,

if it is wine,

it renders susceptible

to contracting ritual impurity!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to state this because the practical difference between whether it is wine or water applies when

one made temed with rainwater.

The water he placed on the sediment was rainwater that he had not yet considered using, and the status of liquid that renders food susceptible to contracting impurity had not descended upon it, since he had not assigned it that status. But wine has the status of a liquid even without such intention. Therefore, this temed renders food susceptible to contracting impurity only if its status is that of wine.

And we ask:

But once he takes the water and pours it into a vessel,

as soon as he transferred the rainwater from the vessel into which it had dripped to the vessel containing the sediment,

he has assigned it significance,

thereby giving it the status of a liquid even if it is water. Once again, there is no practical difference whether the temed is water or wine.

And we answer:

It is necessary, as the temed formed on its own.

The rainwater fell by itself into the sediment, and the person had no intention concerning it at all. Therefore, it renders food susceptible to contracting impurity only if its status is that of wine.

And we ask:

But once he draws off each batch in turn, he has assigned it significance.

Since he drew the first and second waters from the temed, he demonstrated that he was pleased with the rainwater's entering the sediment and thereby assigned it significance. If so, once again there is no practical difference whether it is water or wine!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The case is one in which the person did not draw off the water from the temed; rather, it was

a cow that drank the first batch in turn.

The cow drank the first and second waters, and we are now discussing the third waters of the rainwater. Since their status is that of water, they do not render food susceptible to contracting impurity, as the person never assigned them significance. Only the second waters of teruma and the first waters of second tithe have the capacity to render food susceptible, since they have the status of wine with regard to their prohibition.

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said that Rav said: The kiddush of the day is not recited

on Shabbat and Festivals

except over wine fit for libation upon the altar.

Even if it has the status of wine with regard to the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” nevertheless, with regard to kiddush, which is a mitzva, it must possess greater importance, such that it is fit for libation upon the altar.

And we inquire:

What does this serve to exclude?

Which wine is Rav excluding, whose status is that of wine for ordinary purposes but which is not fit for libation upon the altar?

If you say that he comes to exclude wine from its press,

unfermented grape juice.

But Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Wine from its press may not be brought

for libation upon the altar [because it is stated: “Pour a libation of intoxicating wine to the Lord,” implying specifically wine that intoxicates],

but if it was brought, it is valid.

And since if it was brought it is valid

after the fact with regard to the altar,

we

with regard to kiddush

should certainly, even from the outset, consider it valid,

since kiddush is not as stringent as the libation upon the altar.