Shabbat 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: We too

learned

in accordance with Rav Naḥman.

For we learned in the Mishna:

One who carries out wine, the amount required for diluting the cup.

And it was taught concerning it: The amount required for diluting a proper cup.

And it was taught in the latter clause

of the Mishna:

“And all other liquids” —

“a revi'it.”

This shows that for liquids fit for drinking, we require a revi'it. Necessarily, the measure of wine as well, with regard to carrying out, is wine fit to provide a revi'it for drinking; that is, it must contain one-quarter of a revi'it of wine, so that after it is diluted with water it will amount to a revi'it [as Rava proceeds to explain, Rava maintains that this is the procedure for dilution].

And since we have said that this is the dilution of a cup of blessing, infer from it that it is in accordance with Rav Naḥman, who said that Rabba bar Avuha said that a cup of blessing must contain one-quarter of a revi'it, so that when it is diluted it will amount to a revi'it.

And Rava

follows

his own reasoning.

For Rava said: Any wine

wine

that cannot bear

that, when diluted with water, one does not add

one

part of wine

to three

parts

of water —

is not wine.

Abaye said: There are two answers

that I can give

to this matter:

One: For we learned

in tractate Niddah that there is a menstrual blood appearance resembling diluted wine. And the Mishna explains:

And diluted

means

two parts water and one part wine, of Sharonite wine,

which was grown in a region called Sharon.

Thus, the procedure for dilution is one part wine to two parts water. If so, with regard to carrying out, there must be one-third of a revi'it of wine. The same applies to a cup of blessing, and this is not in accordance with Rav Naḥman!

And furthermore,

there is another answer to what you said, that the actual measure for carrying out wine is a revi'it, like that of all liquids, except that we combine with it the water that one intends to add to it.

But are

water

placed

in a jug

without one's carrying them out,

and

nevertheless they

combine

with the measure of the wine, making him liable for carrying out the wine?! When he carried out the wine, the water was not yet in it; how, then, can he be liable for carrying it out?

Rather, necessarily, the liability is for carrying out the wine as it is, since the measure of wine is not like that of other liquids. Even when it is less than a revi'it, it is significant because it is fit for a cup of blessing [by adding water to it].

If so, there is no proof from here with regard to the measure of a cup of blessing. It is possible that even after dilution it remains less than a revi'it.

Rava said to him: This that you said

to prove from the Mishna that

two parts water and one part wine, of Sharonite wine

are the measure for diluting wine — this is not difficult.

For

Sharonite wine alone

is the one for which it is required not to add more than two parts water, because

it is weak,

as it is a weak wine. But for ordinary wine, one adds three parts water to it.

Alternatively, there —

is a matter of appearance!

The tanna does not intend to say that this is the manner of diluting wine; rather, he means that dilution in this ratio produces a red appearance which, in the case of menstrual blood, is an appearance of ritual impurity. But if one adds more water to it, its redness becomes fainter, so that if a woman sees blood with this weaker appearance, she does not become impure with menstrual impurity.

But according to the flavor,

meaning the ordinary dilution, performed so that the wine will receive its proper flavor,

more is required

in the way of water, and it must contain three parts water.

And

this

that you said

to challenge: Are

water in a jug, and do they combine

to make one liable for carrying them out?!

One can say:

With regard to Shabbat,

we require something significant.

And this too,

wine in a quantity to which three parts water can be added,

is significant!

Since the wine is designated to have water added to it so as to bring it to a revi'it, it already possesses the significance of a revi'it now. In any event, the measure of wine with regard to carrying out is also a revi'it.

If so, this also proves with regard to a cup of blessing that its measure is a revi'it.

The tanna

taught: Wine

that is dry,

solidified — its measure with regard to carrying out is

an olive-bulk.

Because an olive-bulk of solidified wine contains a revi'it of wine: wine contracts when it solidifies, and from a revi'it of wine only an olive-bulk remains [an olive-bulk is half an egg or one-third of an egg, and a revi'it is one and a half eggs].

And since solidified wine cannot be diluted, we require it to contain a complete revi'it of wine,

the words of Rabbi Natan.

Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda —

said the same thing,

that a revi'it of liquid contracts into an olive-bulk when solidified.

Rabbi Natan —

this is what we have said.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda —

this is

as it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

There are

six matters

that are

among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel.

For Beit Hillel are stringent and Beit Shammai are lenient in these matters. [

In tractate Eduyot there are many additional matters concerning which tannaim testified that they are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel; Rabbi Yehuda testified concerning six matters].

And this is one of them:

The blood of an unslaughtered carcass —

Beit Shammai deem it pure,

because the blood is not considered flesh that becomes impure as an unslaughtered carcass.

And Beit Hillel deem it impure,

because the blood is considered flesh.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed impure only blood that contains a revi'it, since it can solidify and amount to an olive-bulk.

Since the blood conveys impurity as flesh, it must contain the measure of flesh that conveys impurity as an unslaughtered carcass, namely, an olive-bulk.

Thus, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, also maintains in accordance with Rabbi Natan, that a revi'it contracts into an olive-bulk.

And we reject this:

Abaye said: Perhaps this is not so,

but it is possible that Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do not agree with one another.

For

Rabbi Natan went no further than saying here that a revi'it is required

so that after it solidifies an olive-bulk will remain [for he said that an olive-bulk of dry wine suffices for carrying out because it derives from a revi'it of wine]

only with regard to wine, which is thin,

as it is diluted while liquid and its volume is large. Therefore, when it dries, it contracts greatly and reaches the measure of an olive-bulk.

But with regard to blood, which is thick,

and therefore its volume does not change so much when it dries, in order to reach a measure of

an olive-bulk

solidified,

a revi'it is not required

of liquid; even less than a revi'it of liquid becomes an olive-bulk when solidified. Therefore, the blood of an unslaughtered carcass conveys impurity even when it is less than a revi'it.

It follows that Rabbi Natan does not maintain in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

Alternatively, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda went no further than saying there

with regard to blood

that an olive-bulk

of solidified blood

suffices with a revi'it

of liquid blood

only with regard to blood,

because

it is thick

and its volume is reduced.

But wine, which is thin,

since it is diluted and its volume is large,

an olive-bulk

of solidified wine

is greater than a revi'it

of liquid. For in order to reach an olive-bulk of dry wine, more than a liquid revi'it is required. Thus, a liquid revi'it of wine that solidifies is less than an olive-bulk.

Therefore,

when he carries out

even

less than an olive-bulk

of solidified wine,

he should be liable,

since there is here the measure of a liquid revi'it of wine, which is the measure for carrying out wine, and this is not in accordance with Rabbi Natan.

We learned in the Mishna:

Milk: the amount of one swallow.

They raised a dilemma before them:

How should it be read? Is it

the amount of one swallow

with an alef,

or the amount of one swallow

with an ayin?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

said: It is stated:

“Please give me a little water to drink from your jug,”

with an alef.