Chullin 26a — the Talmud in English

When it has fermented

specifically,

is the dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah. But when it has not fermented, even Rabbi Judah concedes that it is not wine but water,

and the Mishna is Rabbi Judah’s

view, for even according to him there is a distinction between one that has fermented and one that has not fermented.

And likewise Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: When it has fermented

specifically,

is the dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah.

And Rav Naḥman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said: Watered wine

that has not yet fermented,

which was purchased with second-tithe money

in Jerusalem,

and ultimately

after it remained in his possession,

fermented

the watered wine,

acquires second tithe

the watered wine; that is, the second-tithe money that came into the hands of the seller of the watered wine was transferred onto the watered wine, and the seller may use the money as though it were non-sacred [for if the watered wine were not considered wine, the money in the seller’s possession would not have been transferred, but would have remained with the sanctity of second tithe].

What is the reason

do we say that it acquires second tithe, since at the time of the sale the watered wine had still not fermented?

Because once it fermented in the end,

the matter is revealed retroactively that

at the time of the acquisition

it was produce.

That is, already then the force of the grape stones had entered the water and it had become wine. However, since the making of the wine had not yet been completed, it had not fermented.

And we challenge Rav Naḥman:

Rather, when the Mishna teaches: “If it fermented, yes,”

but

if it did not ferment

the watered wine,

no.

For it is not purchased with second-tithe money, and if he purchased it with second-tithe money, the money remains with its sanctity in the possession of the seller, since watered wine that has not fermented is water. But why? Let us say:

Perhaps if he had left it

the watered wine, and had not drunk it,

it would have fermented

in the end, and it would have become clear that at the time of the sale it was already wine; and if so, the money in the seller’s possession should be considered transferred.

Rather, it is certainly proven that even if the watered wine fermented in the end, we do not say, “The matter is revealed retroactively”; rather, as long as it has not yet fermented, it is in the category of water, and therefore the money in the seller’s possession was not transferred. And this is difficult for Rav Naḥman?

And we answer:

Rabbah said:

When the Mishna teaches, “If it did not ferment, no,” it is speaking of a case where it is certain that the watered wine would not ultimately have fermented had he left it. How so?

When he left over some of it

the seller left a small amount of the watered wine

in a cup,

which he did not sell,

and

that small amount

did not ferment

even after a long time. It thus became clear that all the remaining watered wine would not ultimately have fermented, and therefore the money remained sanctified in the seller’s possession. But where the matter is uncertain, one may say that watered wine that has not fermented has the status of wine, lest it ferment in the end, in accordance with Rav Naḥman.

Rava said:

The Mishna is always speaking even when it fermented in the end, and nevertheless it is not difficult for Rav Naḥman, for

this

Mishna

is

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s.

For according to his view, one follows the appearance, that is, the color of the liquid. And since the color of watered wine is like the color of water, it does not become wine until it actually ferments, as will be explained below; whereas Rav Naḥman’s statement is according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and according to them one follows only the substance of the liquid. Therefore, anything that will ultimately ferment is already considered wine from now.

As we learned: Three log of drawn water

that were

lacking

from them

a kortov,

that is, they were not a full three log, but were lacking a small amount,

into which a kortov of wine fell,

and completed them to three log,

and their appearance was like the appearance of wine,

for the color of the water became red through the kortov of wine,

and they fell

these waters

into a ritual bath

that does not contain forty seah of rainwater,

they did not disqualify it.

For there are not here three complete log of water [for the wine does not disqualify the ritual bath], which is the measure of drawn water that disqualifies the ritual bath.

And not only when the water changed its color. Rather, even

three log of water lacking a kortov, into which a kortov of milk fell, and their appearance was like the appearance of water,

for a small amount of milk does not change the color of the water,

and they fell into a ritual bath, they did not disqualify it.

Even though there is here the color of water, nevertheless the milk does not join to complete the measure of three log of water, since one does not follow the appearance at all; and three complete log of water did not fall into the ritual bath.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Everything follows the appearance.

Therefore, in the first clause, where the water has the color of wine, it has the status of wine and does not disqualify the ritual bath. But in the latter clause, since there are here three log with the color of water, the milk found in it also has the status of water, and joins to disqualify the ritual bath.

And Rava concludes:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan

ben Nuri not say that

we follow the appearance?

That is, a liquid that is not water comes to have the status of water by having the color of water, as is explained in the law concerning the kortov of milk.

Here too

in the Mishna, concerning watered wine that has not fermented, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would say that even though in its substance the watered wine is already wine, since it will ultimately ferment [in accordance with Rav Naḥman], nevertheless,

go after the appearance and the taste. And the appearance of this

watered wine that has not fermented,

is water!

Therefore, it has the status of water until it ferments; at that point it already has the taste of wine, and therefore has the status of wine.

And it disagrees,

this statement of Rav Naḥman, who said above that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah in the Mishna, “One who makes watered wine and gives it water,” applies only after the watered wine has fermented, with

Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: All agree,

even Rabbi Judah, who obligates the watered wine that he found to be the measure of what he gave in second tithe, concedes

that one does not separate from it

terumot and tithes

from another place,

that is, from other watered wine, even if it is equal to it,

unless it has fermented

the watered wine in both vessels, as he explains and proceeds.

And it is proven from Rabbi Elazar’s words that

he holds

that

when it has not fermented there is a dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah. That is, Rabbi Judah obligates it in second tithe even when it has not fermented, for Rabbi Elazar says that, when it has not fermented, according to Rabbi Judah one does not separate from it from another place; this implies that it is indeed obligated in second tithe.

And this is the explanation of Rabbi Elazar’s words:

Rabbi Judah obligates only up to this point

in the case of watered wine that has not fermented:

but

to separate the tithe

from within itself,

from the watered wine itself.

But

to separate

from elsewhere,

from other watered wine that likewise has not fermented,

no,

for one must be concerned

perhaps

one of them will ultimately ferment and is already now wine, and is obligated in second tithe, while the other will never ferment and is water, and is exempt from second tithe.

And he will come to separate from that which is obligated for that which is exempt, and from that which is exempt for that which is obligated.

For it is forbidden to do so: if he separates from that which is exempt for that which is obligated, he eats untithed produce, since the obligated produce is not rendered rectified through separation from something exempt from tithes, and it remains untithed produce; and if he separates from that which is obligated for that which is exempt, the designation “teruma” does not take effect upon the teruma that he separates from the obligated produce, because it is not separated for something obligated in tithes. Rather, the teruma remains untithed produce, and when he gives it to a priest, he causes him to stumble through eating untithed produce, which is forbidden even to priests.