Bava Batra 97a — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn

in tractate Maasrot:

The one who infuses,

who makes temed from wine sediment,

and measured water

upon the sediment, which came from wine that had not been tithed,

and

after some time

found the measure of its quantity,

that the temed does not exceed the quantity of water that he put in, it is

exempt

from tithing, because its status is that of water; and even if it has the taste of wine, since nothing at all was added to it from the sediment.

And Rabbi Yehuda obligates

in tithing this temed, whose status is that of wine, since it has the taste and appearance of wine.

And the Gemara proves:

They disagree only

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda

but

when he found in the temed

the measure of its quantity

of the water that he put in, and no more.

But when it is more than the measure of its quantity,

if even a little was added to the water that he put in,

they do not disagree.

And the Rabbis too would agree that he is obligated in tithing, because its status is that of wine. And if so, the same is true that the Rabbis would agree that one recites over it, “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” And how can you say that the Rabbis and others disagree in a case in which the water in the temed increased?

And we answer: In truth,

the same is true: they disagree even when it is more than the measure of its quantity.

And the Rabbis hold that its status is that of wine only if the addition is in the measure of one cup for three cups of water.

And the reason that they disagree when it is the measure of its quantity is to make known the power of Rabbi Yehuda,

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: What is the ruling concerning sediment that has the taste of wine?

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

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

The taste is only because the sharpness of the sediment entered it, and not because it is wine; therefore one recites over it only “by Whose word all things came to be.”

The Sages taught: The sediment of teruma,

upon which he put water and extracted it, and again put other water upon it, and did so several times:

the first and the second,

the first and second waters,

are prohibited.

Their status is that of teruma, because 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, because they are merely water, even if they have the taste of wine.

Rabbi Meir says: Even the third

is prohibited if it is

when it imparts taste,

that it still has the taste of wine.

And

the sediment of

Second Tithe:

the

first is prohibited

to drink it outside the wall of Jerusalem, according to the law of Second Tithe. And the

second is permitted,

for the law of Second Tithe does not apply to it.

Rabbi Meir says: Even the second

is prohibited if it is

when it imparts taste.

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

when it imparts taste.

And we raise a contradiction

from that which was taught: The sediment

of consecrated property is always prohibited.

Even if he exchanged the water many times.

And that of Second Tithe

tithe

is always permitted,

even the first waters.

The matter of consecrated property contradicts the matter of consecrated property.

For in the first beraita it was stated that with regard to consecrated property it is not prohibited forever, but only the third or the fourth.

The matter of tithe contradicts the matter of tithe.

For in the first beraita it was stated that with regard to tithe the first or the second is prohibited, whereas here it is stated that with regard to tithe it is always permitted.

And we answer:

The matter of consecrated property and the matter of consecrated property are not difficult:

Here,

the second beraita speaks of sediment that was from wine that was consecrated

with inherent sanctity,

for he consecrated it for libations, to pour it upon the altar. And this is a severe sanctity; therefore it is prohibited forever.

Here,

the first beraita speaks of wine that was consecrated only

with monetary sanctity,

for he consecrated a barrel of wine for the repair of the Temple, on the condition that it be sold and that the needs of the repair of the Temple be carried out with its proceeds. And this sanctity is lighter; therefore it is not prohibited forever.

The matter of tithe and the matter of tithe, too, are not difficult:

Here,

the first beraita speaks

of definite tithe.

Therefore even the first or the second is prohibited.

Here,

the second beraita speaks

of demai tithe,

for the wine from which the tithe was separated was not definite tevel, but demai, which they purchased from an ignoramus suspected concerning tithes. And the Sages were lenient with regard to it, because most ignoramuses tithe. Therefore the water that one puts upon this sediment is always permitted.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: In the manner that they said with regard to their prohibition,

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

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

For the first and second waters of teruma are considered wine, and they render food susceptible to receiving impurity [for wine is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to receiving impurity], and so too the first waters of tithe. But the third waters of teruma and the second waters of tithe are not considered wine, and they do not render food susceptible to receiving impurity. And we raise a question:

Their capacity to render susceptible—

of demai?

What capacity to render susceptible is being discussed? If it is with regard to receiving impurity, there is no difference whether it is water or wine, for whether

if it is water,

if it is water,

it renders susceptible,

it renders the food susceptible to receiving impurity; and whether

if it is wine,

if it is wine,

it renders susceptible

to receiving impurity!?

And we answer:

It is necessary;

the practical difference whether it is wine or water is in a case

where he infused it with rainwater.

The water that he put upon the sediment was rainwater, upon which he had not yet thought to use it, and the law of liquids that render food susceptible to receiving impurity had not yet descended upon it, since he had not assigned it importance. But wine has the law of a liquid even without thought. Therefore, only if this temed has the status of wine does it render food susceptible to receiving impurity.

And we ask:

And once he takes it and puts it into a vessel,

for immediately upon transferring the rainwater from the vessel into which it dripped to the vessel containing the sediment,

he assigned importance to them,

he assigned importance to them by doing so, and the law of liquids descended upon them even if they are water. And again there is no practical difference whether the temed is water or wine.

And we answer:

It is necessary, for it was infused on its own.

The rainwater fell by itself into the sediment, and no thought at all was present on the part of the person; therefore, only if its status is that of wine does it render food susceptible to receiving impurity.

And we ask:

And once he draws off each one in turn, he assigns importance to them.

Since he drew off the first and second waters from the temed, he demonstrated that he is pleased with the falling of the rain into the sediment, and he thereby assigned importance to them. If so, 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, but

with a cow that drinks the first one 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, because the person never assigned importance to them. Only the second waters of teruma and the first waters of tithe have the capacity to render food susceptible, since they have the designation of wine with regard to their prohibition.

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said that Rav said: One recites the Kiddush of the day

on Shabbat and Festivals

only over wine fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar.

Even if it has the designation 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 have greater importance, so that it will be fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar.

And we consider it:

To exclude what?

Which wine did Rav come to exclude, whose status is that of wine with regard to its manner [of use], but which is not fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar?

If you say to exclude wine from the press,

unfermented grape juice,

but Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Wine from the press one may not bring

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

but if he brought it, it is valid.

And once, if he brought it, it is valid

after the fact with regard to the altar,

we

with regard to Kiddush

even initially also

should find it valid, for Kiddush is not as stringent as the pouring of a libation upon the altar.