Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether (with regard to which B'rachah to recite over Yiyin she'Hikrim) he held like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, or like Rav Chisda. The gist of his reply was - that he follows the opinion of a Beraisa (which we will now proceed to explain).

(b) The Beraisa states that a barrel of wine which someone uses for Terumos and Ma'asros on other barrels, and which, after a month or two, he finds has turned sour - is Vaday all three days and Safek from then onwards.

(c) The Beraisa uses the expression 'ha'Bodek es ha'Chavis', implying that he tastes the wine (see Tosfos). He may taste the wine from the barrel even before having separated Ma'asros from it - by separating the T'rumos and Ma'asros from the small part that he removes in order to taste.

(d) The problem that now concerns the Tana is - whether all the barrels that he rectified with the Terumos and Ma'asros that he separated until now are indeed Ma'asered or not.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana means that for the first three days, the contents of the barrel are considered wine, and it is only from the third day on that it is considered a Safek vinegar. It is considered ...

1. ... wine the first three days (and not Safek vinegar) - because since at that stage it had not yet even begun to taste like vinegar, even assuming that it began to go off immediately after he placed the wine in the barrels, it would take at least three days to taste like vinegar too.
2. ... Safek vinegar the last three days (and not Vaday vinegar) - because we know that when he placed the wine in the barrel it was not vinegar. Consequently, even though now it has become vinegar, perhaps it only began to go sour at the beginning of the last three-day period.

(b) We know that it was definitely wine at that first stage - because when wine begins to turn sour, it starts at the top.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - from the beginning of the last three days, the wine was definitely vinegar, before that, it was a Safek.

(b) He considers the wine a Safek vinegar right from the beginning - because, in contrast to Rebbi Yochanan, he holds that when wine begins to go off, it starts from the bottom. Consequently, even though the owner tasted it at the beginning, he would not necessarily have noticed even if the bottom had begun to turn sour.

(c) In fact, he might even concede to Rebbi Yochanan that the wine begins to turn sour from the top. However, he did taste it, and it did not taste of vinegar. Consequently, it can have been no more than a Safek vinegar at that stage.

(d) And he considers the wine Vaday vinegar since the beginning of the last three-day period, because, as opposed to Rebbi Yochanan, he considers wine that smells like vinegar, to be vinegar. Consequently, since it now tastes like vinegar, it must have been vinegar for at least three days, because it must have smelt like vinegar for the three days prior to that (since this is how long it takes for the smell to turn into taste).

(a) According to the Deruma'i - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, interprets the Beraisa to mean that the first three days it is Vaday wine (like Rebbi Yochanan), the last three days it is Vaday vinegar, whilst the days in between are all a Safek.

(b) The problem with this quotation is - that it is self-contradictory, since the first statement follows the opinion that wine that tastes like wine but smells like vinegar is wine, whereas the second statement seems to hold the opposite.

(c) So we conclude that basically, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi concurs with Rebbi Yochanan. And when the Deruma'i quote him as saying that for the last three days, it is Vaday vinegar, they must mean - that it turned excessively sour, indicating that it had already become vinegar at least three days earlier.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan - does not establish the Beraisa in such a case, and what's more, he doesn't seem to agree with this interpretation either. In his opinion, the last three days are always a Safek, irrespective of how acutely sour they became.

6)

(a) When Rav says that for the first three days following the sale, wine is considered to be in the seller's domain, he means - that if wine becomes vinegar (in taste as well as smell) within three days of the sale, it is a false sale (as if he would have sold wine which turned out to be vinegar), because when he sold it, it already smelt like vinegar.

(b) This does not mean - that Yayin she'Hikrim is considered vinegar. In fact, it might well be considered wine, yet it is a false sale, because wine that smells like vinegar is bound to go off.

(c) We will learn a Mishnah shortly 'ha'Mocher Yayin la'Chavero ve'Hichmitz, Eino Chayav be'Asharayuso'. Rav might well establish the Mishnah when this took place after three days. We can infer this from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself - because had the Tana been speaking when it occurred within three days, he should have said 've'Nimtza Chometz'.

(d) Alternatively, Rav might establish the Mishnah, even if it occurred within three days - only the wine had been poured into the purchaser's barrel (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina later in the Sugya).

(a) Shmuel rules that if wine turns sour even during the first three days and even in the barrels of the seller - then, based on the Pasuk in Chavakuk "Af ki ha'Yayin Boged", it is the Mazel of the purchaser that caused it (see Tosfos DH 'u'Shmuel').

(b) Rav Yosef issued a ruling like Shmuel in a case concerning wine because a S'tam Mishnah later in the Perek clearly corroborates his opinion. But he ruled like Rav - in a case concerning beer.

(c) Our Sugya however, concludes - 've'Hilch'sa Kavaseih di'Shmuel'.

8)

(a) The Beraisa states that the B'rachah over date-beer, barley-beer and Shemarei Yayin (dregs of wine to which one added water) is - 'Shehakol'.

(b) We would otherwise have thought that one recites - 'ha'Eitz' on date-beer, 'Mezonos' on barley-beer, and 'ha'Gafen' on Sh'marei Yayin.

(c) Acccording to Acherim - one does indeed recite 'ha'Gafen' over Sh'marei Yayin.

(d) Rabah and Rav Yosef rule like - Acherim.

(a) Rava qualifies the above Machlokes. According to him, if one added three cups of water to the dregs and four emerged - even the Rabbanan would agree that the correct B'rachah would be 'ha'Gafen'.

(b) When we comment on this 'Rava le'Ta'ameih', we are referring to Rava's well-known opinion that wine is only considered such if one adds three parts water to one part wine.

(c) In a case where one poured three cups and three cups emerged, says Rava - even Acherim agrees that it is not wine, even if it tastes like wine.

(d) Even Rebbi Yehudah, who considers the wine in this very same case subject to Ma'aser - will agree that the B'rachah is 'Shehakol', because, in fact, he has a Safek whether this is considered wine or not. Consequently, based on the ruling that Bedieved, one is always Yotze if one recites 'Shehakol', that is the best thing to do in case of a Safek. And by the same token, one is obligated to Ma'aser it.

(a) The Rabbanan and Acherim argue when one added three cups of water, and three and a half emerged.

(b) The reasoning behind the ruling of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan is - that the three and a half that emerged comprise the three of water, and only a half of wine, and one seventh wine is insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.
2. ... Acherim is - that two and a half of the water emerged plus one of wine, and one to two and a half (two fifths) wine is sufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.

(c) We will not apply the same principle in the case where one added three cups of water and three emerged, and say there too, that two cups of water emerged and one of wine - because firstly, there is no indication that anything other than the water that he poured in came out. And secondly, we would at most, assume that half of wine emerged, and less than a quarter of wine (a fifth in this case) is insufficient to recite 'ha'Gafen' over.