Bava Batra 97b — the Talmud in English

And if you wish to say that kiddush is entirely equivalent to the libation on the altar, this is difficult:

For Rava said

explicitly concerning wine from its grape harvest, that it is initially fit for kiddush:

A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes,

that is, wine from its grape harvest,

and recite the kiddush of the day over it.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it came

to exclude

the wine that comes

from the mouth and bottom

of the barrel, over which one does not recite kiddush, since it is not fit for libation upon the altar.

But Rabbi Hiyya taught:

Wine

from the mouth and bottom

of the barrel

one should not bring

for libation upon the altar, because of the flour-like sediment at the mouth of the barrel and because of the sediment at the bottom of the barrel.

But if he brought it, it is fit.

And if so, with regard to kiddush it is permitted even initially!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it came

to exclude black wine,

black,

borek,

white and inferior,

hiliston,

very sweet and very weak wine,

of the cellar,

that is, ordinary wine that was not examined, and perhaps it is koses [which has begun to sour],

of raisins

from which one made wine.

But it was taught in a beraita

concerning all these wines:

In all of them, he should not bring

to the altar,

but if he brought it, it is fit.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it came

to exclude koses wine,

diluted,

to which water was added,

uncovered,

and there is concern that perhaps a snake drank from it,

and wine of sediment,

tamad,

and foul-smelling.

But it was taught in a beraita,

with regard to all these wines:

In all of them, he should not bring it; but if he brought it, it is disqualified.

And therefore they are also disqualified with regard to kiddush.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

To exclude what?

Which of these disqualifications did Rav intend when he said that one does not recite kiddush over it?

If to exclude koses wine?

This is

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

They disputed concerning koses wine, which is wine that has begun to sour and already has the smell of vinegar, but its taste is still that of wine. Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is fully wine, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that it is vinegar, and one does not recite over it even “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” but only “everything.”

And if Rav intended koses wine, and came to rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he should have taught us that one recites over it even “everything.”

If to exclude diluted wine?

On the contrary,

it is improved.

The dilution improves the wine with regard to kiddush!

For Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said:

Although the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disputed in tractate Berakhot [50b] concerning undiluted wine—according to Rabbi Eliezer, one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the tree,” while the Sages hold that one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the vine”—

the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning the cup of

blessing [kiddush and the Grace after Meals],

that one does not recite the blessing over it until he places water into it.

For without the water it is too strong, and it is not so praiseworthy.

And how is it possible to say that Rav came to disqualify diluted wine for kiddush?

If to exclude

wine

that is uncovered?

But

it is a danger,

perhaps a snake drank from it and put venom into it; and even without kiddush it is forbidden to drink it, so Rav would not have needed to say that one does not recite kiddush over it.

If to exclude

wine

of sediment—

What are the circumstances?

If he placed three and four came out,

that he placed three cups of water over the sediment and four cups of tamad came out.

But

it is superior wine

and fit for kiddush!

If he placed three and three came out,

that he placed three cups of water and three and a half cups of tamad came out.

But

it is the dispute of the Sages and Others.

Whether its status is that of wine or not. And we hold in accordance with the Sages, that its status is like water, and one does not recite over it even “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” Why, then, did Rav need to say that one does not recite kiddush over it?

And we conclude: Rather,

to exclude

wine

that is foul-smelling,

over which one recites “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” since it is fully wine, but one does not recite kiddush over it because it is repulsive, having been kept in a repulsive vessel and having become slightly foul-smelling.

And Rav did not come to say that all wines disqualified for the altar are also disqualified for kiddush. Rather, only this: clean wine that is fit for the altar because of its cleanliness is fit for kiddush, whereas wine that is repulsive and is not fit for the altar because of “Present it, please, to your governor” is also disqualified for kiddush for that same reason.

And if you wish, say: In fact,

Rav came

to exclude wine

that is uncovered.

And as for what we challenged—“It is a danger”—it can be answered that Rav came to say:

Even though he passed it through a strainer,

having strained the wine, and

in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that in such a case there is no danger and it is permitted to drink, because the snake’s venom floats and remains in the strainer,

even so

it is disqualified for the altar, because it is said concerning those who bring an offering that is defective [Malachi 1:8]: “

Present it, please, to your governor

[your masters];

will he be pleased with you or will he show you favor?”

It follows that every disgraceful thing is forbidden for an offering. And therefore the uncovered wine is also not fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar.

And the same law applies: one does not recite kiddush over it.

Rav Kahana, the father-in-law

his father-in-law

of Rav Mesharsheya, asked Rava: White wine,

white wine,

what is

its status—[is it] fit to pour as a libation upon the altar?

He said to him

Rava: It is stated in Proverbs [23:31]: “

Do not look

[do not direct your eyes toward it]

at wine when it is red.”

Since it is excessively intoxicating, it follows that red wine is intoxicating. And concerning libations it is stated: “Pour a libation of strong drink to the Lord.” Therefore it should be preferred for the libation upon the altar. We learned in the Mishna: One who sells to his fellow

jars in the Sharon,

accepts upon himself ten pitsot per hundred.

It was taught: Beautiful and sulfur-sealed pitsot,

that he need not accept upon himself truly broken and defective jars, not even one of them, but rather beautiful jars like the other jars, except that they are slightly broken and the sulfur seals the break, and they can be used somewhat, although they do not last for a long time. And since they are not truly broken, he accepts upon himself ten out of a hundred.

Mishna:

One who sells wine to his fellow and it becomes sour is not obligated

for its responsibility.

The seller need not return his money to him, because at the time he sold it to him, it was wine, and only afterward did it become sour.

But if it is known that his wine becomes sour

always,

this is a mistaken transaction.