Bava Batra 98a — the Talmud in English

And if he said to him

the seller:

wine ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

seasoned

I am selling you,

fine wine that is accustomed to last for a long time,

he is obligated to provide him with wine that will last until Shavuot,

that it will last until the festival of Shavuot. For from then onward the wine spoils from the heat, even if it is seasoned.

And aged,

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

from the previous year

from last year.

And very aged,

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

from three years

that is, from the year before the previous year, so that three years are found together with the year in which they presently stand.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: They taught

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

only with the buyer’s barrels,

that the buyer transferred the wine into his own barrels, and there it soured; in that case, it is possible that his barrels caused it to sour, and therefore the seller is not obligated for it. But if the wine remained

in the seller’s barrels, he said to him

the buyer said to the seller:

“Here is your wine and here is your barrel!”

for even after a long time the buyer can claim to the seller that certainly the wine soured because of your barrels, and the sale is void.

And we challenge this:

But if they are the seller’s barrels, what is there?

Why should the seller suffer the loss?

Let him say to him

let the seller say to the buyer:

“You should not have kept it.”

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

And we answer:

It is necessary,

the Mishna is speaking in a case

where he said to him

the buyer said to the seller that he needs the wine

for the purpose of seasoning [food],

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

And we challenge this:

And what compelled Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina

what necessity was there for him

to establish the Mishna

to establish the Mishna specifically

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

the buyer said to him

“for the purpose of seasoning [food]”?

Let him establish it,

let him establish the Mishna even

with the seller’s barrels, and where he did not say to him “for the purpose of seasoning [food].”

For then, even with the seller’s barrels, he is not liable for it, because the buyer should not have kept the wine until it soured!?

And we answer:

Rava said: The Mishna presented him with a difficulty,

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

as it teaches “

If it is known that his wine sours, this is a mistaken sale.”

Why

is it a mistaken sale?

Let him say to him

the seller could say to the buyer: Indeed, my wine is accustomed to sour over time, but

“You should not have kept it.”

You should not have waited with the wine until it soured.

Rather, is it not, learn from it

that the Mishna is speaking

where he said to him

the buyer said to him

“for the purpose of seasoning [food].”

And therefore, if it is known that the seller’s wine sours, he is liable for it, since the buyer explicitly told him that he wanted to keep it. And if so, the first clause too is speaking where he said to him “for the purpose of seasoning [food].” Therefore Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina had to establish the first clause specifically with the buyer’s barrels, since it is possible that his barrels caused the wine to sour.

And it disagrees with Rav Hiyya bar Yosef.

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

For Rav Hiyya bar Yosef said: Wine—the fortune of its owner causes [it to sour].

The fortune of the owner of the wine is what causes the wine to sour. Therefore the buyer cannot claim to the seller that your barrels caused it to sour; rather, his fortune, since he is the owner of the wine, caused it to sour.

As it is stated: [Habakkuk 2:5] “

“

And indeed, the wine betrays [A0085]]that is, why does the wine betray a person and sour? Because of

[meaning: 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 things that he does not possess, wine therefore betrays him, for 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 is arrogant,

even the people of his household do not accept him.

Even his wife despises him.

As it is stated [there]: “

[there]:

An arrogant man, and he will not dwell.”

What is “

and he will not dwell”?

That even

in his dwelling,

in his home, he is not accepted.

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

who wears a garment designated for Torah scholars,

but is not a Torah scholar, they do not bring him into the partition of the Holy One, blessed be He.

As it is written here: “

An arrogant man

and he will not dwell.”

And it is written there: “

Into the dwelling of Your holiness.”

This implies that he will not enter the dwelling of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Rava said: This one who sells a barrel of wine to a shopkeeper with the intention of watering it down,

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 sours when it reaches half or a third,

and the barrel soured when it reached half or a third,

the law is that he accepts it from him.

The owner must bear the loss, because here it is not applicable to say that the fortune of the shopkeeper caused it, since he has no share in it; it all belongs to the owner. The barrels too are his, and it is impossible to say that the shopkeeper’s barrels caused it to 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, for if he did, it is possible that he caused the wine to sour thereby.

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 his fellow, and they establish its value between them according to the current price here; the recipient engages in selling it, and the profits are divided equally between them.

The merchandise belongs to both of them, and all losses resulting from theft and loss, or from a decline in the value of the merchandise, apply to both of them equally.

Rava said: This one who received wine with the intention of bringing it to the fortress of Wal Shafat.

One who received wine from the owner in order to sell it, and the owner stipulated with him that even if the wine became more expensive he would not sell it here, but would bring it to a certain country, where wine is sold at a high price, and would sell it there,

and by the time he brought it there, it became cheaper.

And by the time he brought it there, wine had become cheaper everywhere, and its value had fallen from the value it had when he received the wine.

The law is that he accepts it from him.

The owner must bear the entire loss from the decline in the wine’s value. Since he did not permit him to sell the wine here, and the recipient could not benefit from the profit in the event of a price increase, he likewise need not bear the damage of the price decrease. [Although it belongs to both of them with regard to other losses, such as theft and loss].

They raised a dilemma before them: It became vinegar,

if the wine soured before the recipient brought the wine to that country,

what

whether even then the owner must bear all the damage 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: “Vinegar—no!”

The owner does not alone accept the loss of the souring; rather, both of them bear it together, in accordance with Rav Hiyya bar Yosef, that the fortune of the owner of the wine causes it to sour, and here both of them are the owners of the wine.

And not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina.

For according to his view, only the owner must bear the damage of the souring, since he holds that even in a complete sale the seller must bear the loss of souring when the barrels were his, provided that the buyer told him that he needed the wine for seasoning [food]. All the more so here, where it is not a complete sale, and all the conditions are fulfilled: the barrels belong to the seller, and the recipient cannot sell the wine immediately, but must wait until a certain country at the owner’s instruction. It is therefore as though he said to him “for the purpose of seasoning [food].”

And some say: Even vinegar as well,

even the loss of the souring as well,

he accepts

the owner alone accepts it.

In accordance with whom?

In accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina.

For the matter does not depend on fortune, but on the one who causes the souring; and here the seller caused it through his barrels.

We learned in the Mishna: One who sells wine to his fellow and says to him: “

Aged

wine I am selling you,” he is obligated to give him wine

from the previous year.

And if he said to him: “I am selling you very aged wine,” he is obligated to give him wine from three years.