Bava Batra 193

המתמד ונתן מים במדה ומצא כדי מדתו פטור ור' יהודה מחייב עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בכדי מדתו אבל ביותר מכדי מדתו לא פליגי

He who, in making Tamad,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] an inferior wine, or a vinegar, made by steeping stalks and skins of pressed grapes in water or by pouring water into Iees. ');">¹</span> poured water into lees by measure and obtained the same quantity [of Tamad] is exempt [from the tithe]. And R. Judah makes him liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ma'as. V. 6; Pes. 24b; Hul. 25b. ');">²</span>

הוא הדין דאפילו ביותר מכדי מדתו פליגי והאי דקא מיפלגי בכדי מדתו להודיעך כחו דר' יהודה

[Does not this imply that] they are in disagreement only so far as [the case] where only the quantity put in [is extracted], but not where more<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case. even the Rabbis (representing the first opinion quoted) would agree that the wine is liable to tithe and, for the same reason, subject to the benediction of proper wine. ');">³</span> than that quantity [is obtained]? — [No]; they are in disagreement even where more than the quantity put in [has been obtained], and [the reason] why they are in dispute in [the case where only] the quantity put in [has been obtained] is to show you how far-reaching is the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the power'. ');">⁴</span>

בעא מיניה רב נחמן בר יצחק מרב חייא בר אבין שמרים שיש בהן טעם יין מהו אמר ליה מי סברת חמרא הוא קיוהא בעלמא הוא

of R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., In holding that even when only the quantity put in has been extracted. it is nevertheless subject to tithe. ');">⁵</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac inquired of R. Hiyya b. Abin: What [is the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding its benediction. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ר שמרים של תרומה ראשון ושני אסור ושלישי מותר רבי מאיר אומר אף שלישי בנותן טעם

in regard to] lees which have the flavour of wine? — He replied unto him: Do you think this is wine? It is a mere acidiferous<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blunts the teeth'. ');">⁷</span> liquor.

ושל מעשר ראשון אסור שני מותר רבי מאיר אומר אף שני בנותן טעם ושל הקדש שלישי אסור ורביעי מותר ר"מ אומר אף רביעי בנותן טעם

Our Rabbis taught: [In the case of] lees of <i>Terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span> the first and the second [infusion] are forbidden [to laymen],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only priests are allowed to eat Terumah. The first and the second infusion are still regarded as Terumah because they contain a considerable admixture of the original wine. ');">⁹</span>

ורמינהי של הקדש לעולם אסור ושל מעשר לעולם מותר קשיא הקדש אהקדש קשיא מעשר אמעשר

but the third is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it may still retain some flavour of wine. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Meir says: Even the third [infusion is forbidden], when [there is in it enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of [second] tithe, the first [infusion] is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be eaten outside Jerusalem. ');">¹¹</span>

הקדש אהקדש לא קשיא כאן בקדושת הגוף כאן בקדושת דמים מעשר אמעשר נמי לא קשיא כאן במעשר ודאי כאן במעשר דמאי

[but] the second is permitted. R. Meir says: The second [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to the water]. And [in the case] of consecrated [lees], the third [infusion] is forbidden, but the fourth is permitted. R. Meir says: The fourth [infusion is] also [forbidden] when [it contains enough of the wine] to impart a flavour [to it]. A contradiction was pointed out [from a Baraitha which states that infusions] of consecrated [things] are forever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the fourth, etc. ');">¹²</span>

א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק כדרך שאמרו לענין איסורן כך אמרו לענין הכשירן

forbidden and [those] of [the second] tithe are always<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the first. ');">¹³</span> permitted. [Surely this shows] a contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things and also between those relating to tithe! — There is no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] consecrated things, [for] here [the law relates] to objects which were themselves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. wine as a drink offering for the altar. ');">¹⁴</span>

הכשירן דמאי אי דמיא אכשורי מכשרי אי דחמרא אכשורי מכשרי לא צריכא שתמדו במי גשמים

consecrated, but there [it relates] to objects whose value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If. e.g.. one has consecrated wine for the purpose that the proceeds from its sale might be used for Temple repairs, the wine must be sold and the proceeds only used. The sanctity of such an object is not as high as that which itself is to be offered on the altar. ');">¹⁵</span> only was consecrated. There is [also] no contradiction between [the respective laws relating to] tithes, [for] here, [the law relates] to that which is certainly tithe, [but] there [it relates] to tithe of <i>Demai</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] (root [H] 'suspect'). Wine or any produce about which there is doubt whether the tithe or any of the priestly, or Levitical gifts has been duly separated. (Produce, e.g.. purchased from an ignorant man, 'am ha-arez.) The law relating to tithes that have been taken from such wine etc., is not as stringent as that relating to tithe taken from produce, wine, etc. about which it is definitely known that no tithe has ever before been taken. ');">¹⁶</span>

וכיון דקא שקיל ורמי להו למנא אחשבינהו לא צריכא שנתמד מאליו

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: The same [laws] that have been said [to apply] in respect of their prohibitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the case of terumah, e.g., the first and the second infusions but not the third, and in the case of the tithe, the first but not the second, are regarded as the original wine, and are subject to its restrictions. ');">¹⁷</span> have similarly been said [to apply] in respect of their making objects fit [for Levitical uncleanness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certain objects such as grain, fruit, etc. are not subject to Levitical uncleanness unless they have been first brought in contact with certain liquids. V. Lev. XI. ');">¹⁸</span>

וכיון דקא נגיד קמא קמא אחשבינהו אמר רב פפא בפרה ששותה ראשון ראשון:

What [kind] of making fit [is meant]? If [the infusion is regarded as consisting] of water, it certainly makes [objects] fit [for the Levitical uncleanness]; [and] if [it is regarded as consisting] of wine it [equally] makes the objects fit. [For what purpose. then, is R. Simeon's statement required?] — It is required in the case where the Tamad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁹</span> was made of rain water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, like other waters, does not fit objects for uncleanness unless used with the owner's desire or consent. Wine, however, always effects fitness for uncleanness whether with, or without the intention or knowledge of the owner. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב אין אומרים קידוש היום אלא על היין הראוי לינסך על גבי המזבח

But since he took up [the rain water] and poured it into the vessel [containing the lees], he [surely] intended them [for use, and consequently there is again no difference between an infusion of wine and one of water. Why, then, R. Simeon's statement]? — It is required [in the case] where the Tamad was made without the aid of human effort.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rainwater fell directly into the lees. ');">²¹</span> But since he draws out [the infusions] one after the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'first, first'. ');">²²</span>

למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי יין מגתו והא תאני ר' חייא יין מגתו לא יביא ואם הביא כשר וכיון דאם הביא כשר אנן אפילו לכתחלה נמי

[does he not, thereby,] reveal his intention [of using them]? — R. papa replied: In [the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this R. Simeon's statement is required. ');">²³</span> of] a cow which drank the [infusions] one after the others [and, consequently, the owner's intention is not known].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case there is a difference whether the infusion is regarded as wine effecting fitness for uncleanness or as water and effecting no fitness. If the cow drank the first infusion only, the law will be applicable to the second infusion. If it drank the second, the law is required for the third. ');">²⁴</span> R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab: The <i>Kiddush</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ause 'sanctification', applied here to the proclamation of the sanctity of the Sabbath or Festival, which is made on Sabbaths and Festivals over a cup of wine, to which other appropriate benedictions are added. ');">²⁵</span> of the day must be proclaimed on such wine only as is fit to be brought as a drink offering upon the altar. What does this exclude? If it is suggested that it excludes wine [that comes] from his vat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., too new. ');">²⁶</span> [it may be retorted]: Did not R. Hiyya teach, 'One must not bring wine from his vat [as a drink offering], but if already brought, it is permitted [to be used]'; and, since [in the case of offerings] it is permitted when brought, it [should be allowed for <i>Kiddush</i>] even at the start also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kiddush is not as high in importance as Temple offerings. ');">²⁷</span>