Bava Batra 98a (צח.) — the Talmud in English

And if he said to him

the seller:

wine

aromatic

I am selling you,

fine wine that normally keeps for a long time,

he is obligated to provide it for him until Atzeret,

so that it will remain sound until the festival of Shavuot. From then onward, the wine spoils because of the heat, even if it is aromatic.

And if he said “aged,”

if the seller said to him: “I am selling you aged wine,” he is obligated to give him wine

from the previous year

that is, from last year.

And if he said “well-aged,”

if he said to him: “I am selling you well-aged wine,” he is obligated to give him wine

from three years ago

that is, from the year preceding the previous year, so that there are three years in all, including the year in which they currently stand.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: They taught

in the first clause of the Mishna, that the seller is not liable for his wine,

only when it is in the buyer’s jugs,

meaning that the buyer transferred the wine into his own jugs, and it turned sour there. In that case, it is possible that his jugs caused it to turn sour, and therefore the seller is not liable for it. But if the wine remained

in the seller’s jugs, he can say to him

the buyer can say to the seller:

“Here is your wine, and here are your jugs!”

For even after a long time, the buyer can claim to the seller that the wine certainly turned sour because of his jugs, and the sale is void.

We raise an objection to this:

But if it is in the seller’s jugs, what difference does that make!?

Why should the seller suffer the loss?

Let him say to him

the seller should say to the buyer:

“You should not have kept it.”

You should not have left the wine for so long, until it turned sour!

We answer:

It is necessary

The Mishna is speaking of a case

where he said to him

the buyer said to the seller that he needed the wine

for preserving,

to use a little at a time to flavor food and put it into a cooked dish.

We raise an objection to this:

And what compelled Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina,

what necessity did he have

to establish the Mishna

to establish that the Mishna is speaking specifically

with the buyer’s jugs, and where he said to him

the buyer said

“for preserving”?

Let him establish it

Let him establish the Mishna even

with the seller’s jugs, and where he did not say to him “for preserving.”

In that case, even when it is in the seller’s jugs, he should not be liable for it, because the buyer should not have kept the wine until it turned sour!?

We answer:

Rava said: The Mishna presented him with a difficulty,

because the final clause of the Mishna was difficult for him,

as it teaches:

“If it is known that his wine turns sour, this is a mistaken sale.”

Why

is it a mistaken sale?

Let him say to him

the seller can say to the buyer: Although it is the nature of my wine to turn sour over time,

“You should not have kept it.”

You should not have waited with the wine until it turned sour.

Rather, is it not so that one may conclude from this

that the Mishna is speaking

where he said to him

the buyer said

“for preserving”?

Therefore, if it is known that the seller’s wine turns sour, he is liable for it, since the buyer explicitly told him that he wanted to keep it. If so, the first clause is also speaking of a case where he said to him “for preserving.” Consequently, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, had to establish the first clause specifically with the buyer’s jugs, since it is possible that his jugs caused the wine to turn sour.

And this disagrees with Rav Hiyya bar Yosef.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, disagrees with Rav Hiyya bar Yosef, who maintains that the Mishna is speaking even when the wine is in the seller’s jugs, and nevertheless the seller is not liable for it.

For Rav Hiyya bar Yosef said: “With regard to wine, the owner’s fortune causes it.”

The fortune of the owner of the wine is what causes the wine to turn sour. Therefore, the buyer cannot claim to the seller that his jugs caused it to turn sour; rather, it was the fortune of the buyer, who is the owner of the wine, that caused it to turn sour.

As it is stated: [Habakkuk 2:5]

“

And moreover, wine is treacherous

” [that is, why does wine betray a person and turn sour? Because of]

an arrogant man.”

Because of a person’s arrogance, by which he deceives people and boasts of qualities he does not possess, wine betrays him. This is measure for measure: People think that he is wine, but in the end he is vinegar.

Rav Mari said: “This one who is arrogant,”

one who acts arrogantly,

“is not accepted even by the members of his household.”

Even his wife holds him in contempt.

As it is stated

[there]:

“An arrogant man, and he will not abide.”

What

does “and he will not abide”

mean?

Even in his own abode,

in his home, he is not accepted.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who arrogantly wears the garment of a Torah scholar

a garment distinctive to Torah scholars,

but is not a Torah scholar, is not admitted into the partition of the Holy One, blessed be He.

For it is written here: “An arrogant man”

“

and he will not abide.”

And it is written there: “

To the abode of Your holiness.”

This indicates that he will not enter the abode of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Rava said: “This one who sells a barrel of wine to a shopkeeper with the intention that he sell it little by little,”

that is, one who gives a barrel of wine to a shopkeeper so that he will sell it in his shop as his agent, while the barrel remains the property of the owner, and only after the shopkeeper sells it will the owner receive the money, while the shopkeeper receives his fee,

and it turns sour when it reaches half or a third,

and the barrel turned sour when it reached half-full or one-third full,

the law is that he accepts it from him.

The owner must bear the loss, because one cannot say here that the shopkeeper’s fortune caused it, since he has no share in it; it belongs entirely to the owner. The jugs too belong to the owner, and one cannot say that the shopkeeper’s jugs caused it to turn sour.

And we said this only when he did not make a change in the tap.

All this applies only when the shopkeeper did not open a new tap in the barrel, since otherwise it is possible that he caused the wine to turn sour by doing so.

And we said this only when the market day had not yet arrived.

Only if market day had not yet arrived. For if it had, he should have sold the barrel, and since he was negligent and did not sell it, he must bear the loss.

The practice is that a person receives merchandise from another, and they set its value between them according to the current market price there. The recipient engages in selling it, and they divide the profits equally between them.

The merchandise is jointly owned by both of them, and all losses resulting from theft, loss, or a decline in the merchandise’s value are borne equally by both of them.

Rava said: “This one who receives wine with the intention of bringing it to the fortress of Ul Shafat.”

One who receives wine from the owner to sell, and the owner stipulates with him that even if the wine’s price rises, he may not sell it here; rather, he must bring it to a certain country, where wine is sold at a higher price, and sell it there,

“and by the time he brings it there, it has fallen in price,”

and before he brings it there, the price of wine falls everywhere, declining from its value at the time he received it.

The law is that he accepts it.

The owner must bear the entire loss resulting from the decline in the value of the wine. Since he did not permit him to sell the wine here, and the recipient could not benefit from the profit if the price rose, he likewise need not bear the loss resulting from the price decline. [Although they are joint owners with regard to other losses, such as theft and loss].

They raised a dilemma before them: “If it became vinegar,”

if the wine turned sour before the recipient brought it to that country,

“what is the law?”

Must the owner also bear the entire loss in that case, or not?

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: “When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana,”

when we were with Rav Kahana,

“he said to us: ‘Not vinegar!’”

The owner alone does not accept the loss resulting from the wine turning sour; rather, they share it, in accordance with the view of Rav Hiyya bar Yosef, that the owner’s fortune causes the wine to turn sour, and here both of them are owners of the wine.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina.

According to his view, only the owner must bear the loss resulting from the wine turning sour, since he maintains that even in the case of a complete sale, the seller must bear the loss when the wine turns sour if it was in his jugs, provided that the buyer told him that he needed the wine for preserving. All the more so here, where there was no complete sale, and all the conditions are fulfilled: The jugs belong to the seller, and the recipient cannot sell the wine immediately; rather, he must wait until he reaches a certain country at the owner’s instruction. This is as though he had said to him “for preserving.”

And some say: Even vinegar as well,

even the loss resulting from the wine turning sour as well,

he accepts

the owner alone accepts it.

In accordance with whose view?

In accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina.

The matter does not depend on fortune, but on the one who caused the wine to turn sour; here, the seller caused it through his jugs.

We learned in the Mishna: One who sells wine to another and says to him: “I am selling you

aged

wine,” he is obligated to give him wine

from the previous year.

And if he says to him: “I am selling you well-aged wine,” he is obligated to give him wine from three years ago.