Bava Batra 97b (צז:) — the Talmud in English

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

as Rava explicitly said

with regard to wine straight from the press, that it is initially fit for kiddush:

A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes,

that is, produce wine straight from the press,

and recite the kiddush of the day over it.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that he came

to exclude

the wine that comes

from the mouth and dregs

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

But Rabbi Hiyya taught:

Wine

from the mouth and dregs

of the barrel

should not be brought

for libation on the altar, because of the sediment at the mouth of the barrel and the dregs at its bottom.

But if one brought it, it is fit.

If so, with regard to kiddush it should be permitted even initially!?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that he came

to exclude black wine,

which is black,

borek,

white and inferior,

hiliston,

sweet and very weak wine,

from the cellar,

that is, ordinary wine that was not examined, and perhaps it is beginning to turn sour [that has begun to become vinegar],

of raisins

from which wine was made.

But it was taught

with regard to all these wines:

In all of them, one should not bring them

to the altar,

but if one brought them, they are fit.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that he came

to exclude wine beginning to turn sour,

diluted wine,

to which water was added,

uncovered wine,

as there is concern that a snake may have drunk from it,

and wine of dregs,

temed,

whose smell is foul.

But it was taught,

with regard to all these wines:

In all of them, one should not bring them. But if one brought them, they are disqualified.

And therefore they are also disqualified with regard to kiddush.

And therefore the Gemara asks:

To exclude what?

Which of these disqualified wines did Rav intend when he said that one may not recite kiddush over it?

If he intended to exclude wine beginning to turn sour?

This is

the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

They disagreed with regard to wine that is beginning to turn sour, meaning wine that has begun to become vinegar and already has the smell of vinegar, but whose taste is still that of wine. Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is fully valid wine, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that it is vinegar, and one does not recite even Borei peri hagefen over it, but only Shehakol.

And if Rav intended wine beginning to turn sour, and came to rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he should have taught us that one recites even Shehakol over it.

If he intended to exclude diluted wine?

On the contrary,

it is improved.

Dilution improves it with regard to kiddush!

As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said:

Although the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disputed, in tractate Berakhot [50b], with regard to undiluted wine—Rabbi Eliezer holds that one recites Borei peri ha-etz over it, while the Sages hold that one recites Borei peri hagefen over it—

the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup of

blessing [for kiddush and Grace after Meals],

that one does not recite the blessing over it until one adds water to it.

For without water it is too strong and not as fine.

And how can one say that Rav came to disqualify diluted wine for kiddush?

If he intended to exclude

wine

that was uncovered?

But

it is dangerous,

as perhaps a snake drank from it and introduced venom into it; and even without the issue of kiddush, it is forbidden to drink it. Rav therefore would not have needed to say that one may not recite kiddush over it.

If he intended to exclude

wine

of dregs—

What are the circumstances?

If he poured three and four came out,

meaning that he poured three cups of water over the dregs and four cups of temed emerged.

But

it is fine wine

and is fit for kiddush!

If he poured three and three came out,

meaning that he poured three cups of water and three and a half cups of temed emerged.

But

this is the dispute between the Rabbis and Aherim.

Whether its status is that of wine or not. And we hold in accordance with the Rabbis that its status is that of water, and one does not recite even Borei peri hagefen over it. Why, then, would Rav have needed to say that one may not recite kiddush over it?

And we conclude: Rather,

to exclude

wine

whose smell is foul,

over which one recites Borei peri hagefen, since it is fully valid wine, but one may not recite kiddush over it because it is repulsive, having been kept in a repulsive vessel and having acquired a slightly foul smell.

Rav did not come to say that all wines disqualified for the altar are also disqualified for kiddush. Rather, he said only that clean wine, which is fit for the altar because of its cleanliness, is fit for kiddush, whereas repulsive wine, which is unfit for the altar because of “Present it, if you please, to your governor,” is likewise disqualified for kiddush for the same reason.

And if you wish, say instead: In fact,

Rav came

to exclude wine

that was uncovered.

And as for what we raised—that it is dangerous—it can be explained that Rav came to say:

Even though he passed it through a strainer,

meaning that he filtered 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 stated with regard to those who offer a sacrifice that is blemished [Malachi 1:8]:

“Present it, if you please, to your governor

[your master];

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

Thus, anything contemptible is forbidden for an offering. Therefore uncovered wine is also unfit for libation on the altar.

The same is true: one may not recite kiddush over it.

Rav Kahana, the father-in-law

of Rav Mesharsheya,

asked Rava: White wine,

meaning white wine,

what is

the ruling as to whether it is fit to be used for libation on 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 intoxicates excessively, it follows that red wine is intoxicating. And with regard to libations it is stated: “Pour a libation of intoxicating wine to the Lord.” Therefore it should be preferred for libation on the altar. We learned in the Mishna: One who sells

jars in Sharon

to another accepts responsibility for ten pitzot per hundred.

It was taught: Fine, sulfur-sealed jars,

meaning that he need not accept responsibility for genuinely broken and defective jars, not even one of them, but rather for attractive jars like the other jars, except that they are slightly cracked and the sulfur seals the crack. They can be used to some extent, but do not last for a long time. Since they are not completely broken, he accepts responsibility for ten out of a hundred.

Mishna:

One who sells wine to another and it turns sour is not obligated

to assume responsibility for it.

The seller need not return the buyer’s money, because at the time he sold it, it was wine, and only afterward did it turn sour.

But if it is known that his wine turns sour

always,

this is a mistaken transaction.